Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Boundaries Order Confirmation Bill.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Labour whether the King's Roll National Council have yet considered the suggestion that disabled ex-service men whose wounds were received on active service since the conclusion of the Great War should henceforth be included in the scheme?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The King's Roll National Council considered this matter at their meeting on Tuesday last. The Council were fully sympathetic to the claims of men of His Majesty's Forces disabled on active service since the Great War, but felt that their inclusion in the King's Roll Scheme raised important points and decided to consider the matter further after making inquiries in their several districts.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: In view of the fact that it is unreasonable to differentiate between a man disabled on active service since the War and a man disabled during the Great War, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to ensure that men who have been disabled on active service since the Great War will not be excluded from the benefits of any scheme designed to help disabled ex-service men?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to wait, before answering in general terms, until I have received the result of the inquiry made by the King's Roll National Council. It is only fair to them.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was raised in July of this year, and that as time is passing, will he make every endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion without any unnecessary delay.

Mr. Brown: I have no doubt that the Council will proceed without any unnecessary delay.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not a fact that serious points have arisen before the King's Roll National Council on this matter, and that a regular soldier who is disabled has the opportunity of applying to certain sources for employment which a man disabled in the Great War has not?

Mr. Brown: I have made it clear that really important points are at issue.

Mr. Leach: Is there any National Roll for men wounded in the mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRUNK ROAD WORK.

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Labour the number of young men who, having completed a course at an instructional centre, have been placed in employment since 1st April, 1937, in the construction and improvement of trunk roads, in accordance with the arrangements come to between himself and the Minister of Transport?

Mr. E. Brown: No opportunities for placing men from the instructional centres in work on new trunk roads have yet arisen. I am, however, hopeful that, as my right hon. Friend's schemes develop, openings will be found for considerable numbers.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a Lancashire miner with a wife and six children was denied unemployment assistance on the ground that he had £15 in the Co-operative bank, and also that a Sunderland disabled ex-Service man with a wife and one child was denied unemployment assistance on the ground of the receipt of an Army pension of the amount of 30s.; whether particulars of these cases have been sent to him with a view to investigation; and under what authority assistance was refused?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that the cases to which my hon. Friend refers are among those quoted in a recent book en-titled "The Problem of the Distressed Areas," where they are stated to be based on material collected as long ago as 1932. I have no information about these cases, and can say with confidence that they have no relevance to current practice in the administration of unemployment allowances.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these statements were made on the authority of the well-known Communist leader Mr. Wal Hannington?

Mr. Brown: I hope the question and the answer will help to correct any misrepresentation that has arisen.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consult with the Unemployment Assistance Board with a view to extending the ambit of their recent instruction, so that the increased cost of the necessaries of life may be taken into consideration in making determinations for single men under the Unemployment Assistance Board's regulations?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that households consisting of a person living alone are regarded as eligible with others for consideration under the Board's recent instruction, but that increased allowances have, in fact, been granted in large numbers of such cases.

Mr. Williams: In view of the rise in the cost of living, is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend that the Unemployment Assistance Board should extend their regulations in regard to this matter?

Mr. Brown: That is another issue. The facts are as I have stated in my answer.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications received for special and additional assistance since the circular for giving the officers discretionary power to deal with such applications was sent out in the Blyth, Ashington, Bedlington and Morpeth areas, respectively; and how many applications have been granted?

Mr. Brown: The number of additions made to assessments on account of the

special circumstances dealt with in the Board's circular during the four weeks ended 30th November in the Board's administrative area of Blyth which includes Bedlington, Morpeth and Ashington, was 1,416. This total excludes cases in which the assessment already contains an equal or greater addition under the standstill arrangements. As regards applications, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 18th November.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received for special and additional assistance, since the circular was issued which gave the officers discretion to deal with the growing needs of applicants for assistance, in the Stoke, Fenton, and Longton sections, respectively, of the Hanley administrative area of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and how many applications have been granted?

Mr. Brown: The number of additions made to assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the Board's Circular during the four weeks ended 30th November in the Board's administrative area of Stoke-on-Trent which includes Fenton and Longton was 1,188. This figure excludes cases in which the assessment already contains an equal or greater addition under standstill arrangements. With regard to the number of applications, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 18th November to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in which the Unemployment Assistance Board have included with the needs of an applicant for an allowance a sum sufficient to enable him to make to a separated wife the remittance which he was making when he was in receipt of standard benefit?

Mr. Brown: Precise information in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but it is estimated that the number of cases where the unemployment allowance includes a sum in respect of separated dependants is about 5,000. This figures includes cases of children as well as of wives.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in receipt of standard unemployment benefit were in receipt of supplementary benefit from the


Unemployment Assistance Board on 15th April, 1937, 1st May, 1st June, 1st July, 1st August, 1st September, 1st October, 1st November, 1st December, or other convenient dates in each of these months?

Mr. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come for a revision of the unemployment benefit scales?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I do not, but as to the course of events during the next two months, I would not like to prophesy. It is a matter for the Statutory Committee.

Following is the statement:

The following table gives the information desired:

Payments of Unemployment Assistance Allowances in Supplementation of Insurance Benefit in Great Britain.

Week ended:


16th April, 1937
…
2,338


30th April, 1937
…
1,946


4th June, 1937
…
1,982


2nd July, 1937
…
1,962


23rd July, 1937
…
2,015


3rd September, 1937
…
2,165


1st October, 1937
…
2,509


29th October, 1937
…
3,320


12th November, 1937.,
…
4,103

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons in receipt of standard benefit, not normally entitled to supplementary benefit from the Unemployment Assistance Board, have, however, received such allowances in order to meet special circumstances?

Mr. Brown: I regret that this information is not available. I am informed, however, that the number of current applications authorised for supplementation allowances on the register of the Unemployment Assistance Board increased by nearly 1,700 during the four weeks period of review, following the issue of the Board's recent circular, but it cannot be stated how many of these applications were due to the operation of that circular.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister endeavour to get these figures, which would be of the very greatest value to the very

reliable leader of the unemployed, Mr. Wal Hannington?

Mr. Brown: I pointed out in answer to a previous question that while Mr. Hannington may be reliable, those who draw deductions from what he said are likely to be very unreliable.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps have been taken to bring to the notice of unemployed persons on standard benefit their right to supplementary benefit in certain circumstances?

Mr. Brown: Notices as to making application for unemployment assistance are exhibited in Employment Exchanges and explanatory leaflets are also available on request.

Mr. Gallacher: Why "on request"? Is the Minister aware that the unemployed persons do not know about this, and in order that they may make the requests, ought not notices to be posted prominently advising them to make requests?

Mr. Brown: I have no understanding that they are not fully aware of this matter.

ELDERLY MEN.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in Durham and Tyneside in the decreases in unemployment during 1937, 55 per cent. took place in the 18 to 34 age group, while 8.7 per cent. was among men aged 55 years and over; and will he state what plans he has to deal with the question of the elderly unemployed in this area?

Mr. E. Brown: I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 2nd December.

Mr. Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department any definite plans for dealing with this class of labour?

Mr. Brown: It is in reference to that point that I gave the answer.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider taking steps to induce employers of labour, when they employ fresh labour, to employ a fixed proportion of elderly unemployed men; and whether he will take steps to secure that some such provision is in-


serted in Government contracts, and that the adoption of such a proposal is made a condition upon industries receiving Government assistance?

Mr. Brown: I have this, and other suggestions, in mind in connection with my general examination into the problem of the older unemployed, but I have not yet completed my inquiries and am not in a position to make any pronouncement on the matter.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that it is now four months since an announcement was made by the right hon. Gentleman, in an interview which he gave, that the Government were considering plans for replacing these unwanted workers in industry, how long shall we have to wait for action?

Mr. Brown: I pointed out that it was my intention to visit every one of the nine Ministry of Labour divisions. I have visited eight and have one more to visit; after that I shall consider all the evidence.

Mr. Griffiths: Since this problem is very largely one of the distressed areas, and as the announcement was made four months ago, how long shall we have to wait before some attention is given to this very serious matter?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member's suggestion is that nothing is being done now, I would point out to him that this is an administrative tour, and that a good deal is being done.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already got all the facts bearing on this matter?

Mr. Markham: Is my right hon. Friend extending his inquiries to Government factories?

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE)

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the estimated cost of abolishing the six days' waiting period in the agricultural unemployment insurance scheme, and also the estimated cost of reducing the waiting period to three days?

Mr. E. Brown: On such assumptions as can be made on the basis of unemployment so far experienced under the Agricultural Insurance Scheme, it is estimated that the cost of abolishing the

waiting period of six days would be at an annual rate not exceeding £100,000, and that the cost of reducing the waiting period to three days would be at an annual rate not exceeding £40,000.

Mr. Williams: As there is a surplus of approximately £2,000,000 in the fund and agricultural labourers with their very low wages can less afford this waiting period, will the right hon. Gentleman invite the committee to make a recommendation on the lines of the question?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that the committee itself is taking evidence on the point, and I have no doubt that evidence will be given in regard to this matter. The point is that the payment of benefits to agricultural workers did not commence until November, 1936.

Mr. Williams: But as approximately there is a surplus of £2,000,000 in the fund, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the committee's investigation of this problem?

Mr. Brown: The committee, I have no doubt, will do its statutory duty, examine the facts, take evidence and make its report.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that six days is too long for agricultural workers to wait?

TRANSFERENCE (JUVENILES)

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls from the depressed areas who have been found employment in the Greater London area through the Employment Exchanges and juvenile employment bureaux for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. E. Brown: 2,138 boys and 1,117 girls from the areas scheduled under the juvenile transference scheme were found employment in the Greater London area through the Employment Exchanges and juvenile employment bureaux during the 12 months ended November, 1937.

Mr. Day: Are there any special safeguards for these juveniles when they are transferred?

Mr. Brown: That is a large question, but I am not clear what the hon. Member means.

Mr. Day: Are arrangements made for the care of these juveniles when they come to London?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that there is a most elaborate scheme in London.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentlemen see that these youths are paid sufficient to keep themselves rather than have to be dependent on subsidies from their parents?

MERTHYR TYDFIL.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have left the borough of Merthyr Tydfil, whether transferred under the Ministry of Labour or voluntarily to seek other employment, since December, 1936?

Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of insured persons, employed and unemployed, in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil in January and October this year?

Mr. Brown: The only figures available are the total numbers of insured persons whose unemployment books were exchanged at the Employment Exchanges serving the Merthyr Tydfil area at the 1936 and 1937 exchange of books, and the numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed. The books exchanged figures gave a total, for persons aged 14 to 64, of 20,490 for July, 1936, and 19,150 for July, 1937. At 25th January, 1937, 10,098 insured persons, aged 14 to 64, were recorded as unemployed, and 7,437 at 18th October, 1937.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister inquire into the figure he has given, which is totally misleading as to the number of insured workers living in the area mentioned in the question?

Mr. Brown: It is the latest figure based on the Employment Exchange books for July.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this figure, apparently, has been unchanged during the year from January to October, and that obviously it is incorrect?

Mr. Brown: That is not so. The figure given in July, 1936, was 20,490 and in July, 1937, 19,150. The hon. Member knows that we get the Employment Exchange books only annually.

STATISTICS (METHOD OF CALCULATION).

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the effect of the revised method of calculating the number of persons unemployed as compared with the old method; on what date the revised method was introduced; and why the old method was discontinued?

Mr. E. Brown: An article giving the information desired will be found on page 379 of the October, 1937, issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Davies: Does it give an explanation as to why it was necessary to change from the old method and what benefit has been derived from the new?

Mr. Brown: Yes, it gives a most complete explanation.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what the present figure of unemployment would be if the calculation were made under the old method?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether the latest figures of unemployment are based on the revised method, which is calculated to show a reduction in numbers in comparison to the previous method of computation; and what would the figures have been on the previous basis?

Mr. Brown: The unemployment figures for 15th November have been compiled under the revised procedure, introduced in September last, which ensures with closer accuracy that persons on the registers who are not actually unemployed on the day of the count are not included in the total. Information is not available that would show the numbers of persons in employment at 15th November excluded from the count under the new procedure, but at 13th September the change reduced the total figure by about 3.6 per cent. I should point out that the figures for October and November are on a comparable basis and the increase in November as compared with October would not have been materially larger if no change had been made in the procedure.

Mr. Smith: Are we to take it that the Minister cannot tell us what the figures of the unemployed would be if they were calculated on the old method?

Mr. Brown: In my answer, I said that there would be no material difference in the monthly comparison.

Mr. Leslie: Does the Minister agree that if the figures had been calculated on the old method, they would have shown at least 50,000 more?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I said in my answer that that would have been so in September, but it would not be so now. This change affects the number of persons on the day of the count who are not actually unemployed, and who register on Friday, say, get a job on Monday, but do not register in the ordinary way at the exchange until one or two days afterwards.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the old method would show an increase of from 2 to 3 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: That was so in September, but it is not so now. If the hon. Member will examine the figures, he will find that a large proportion has regard to those who are temporarily stopped.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the percentage?

Mr. Brown: I could circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find it in the article.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the large increase in the number of unemployed persons in the building trades; and to what extent, if any, this is due to the inability of firms to comply with deliveries of steel?

Mr. E. Brown: The increase to which the hon. Member refers was mainly due to normal seasonal influences. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a large part of the building industry is in no way dependent upon steel supplies, and I have no reason to suppose that any substantial proportion of the increase was accounted for by a shortage of steel. I should point out that, in spite of the very considerable increase in the number of insured persons attached to the building industry which occurred during the past year, the num-

ber unemployed in the industry in Great Britain at 15th November was 1,840 fewer than at the corresponding period last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEAVY PACKAGES (WEIGHT-MARKING).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour why the draft convention adopted by the International Labour Office in 1929, in relation to the marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels, has not been ratified by this country?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on nth February of this year to the hon. Member for Central Kingston-upon-Hull (Mr. Windsor). At the session of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation in October last it was decided that the Office should prepare a report for the consideration of the Governing Body setting out the results of the inquiries referred to in my previous reply.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this House on 23rd June he stated that this Convention had been ratified?

Mr. Brown: I have pointed out that difficulties have arisen of such a nature that the International Labour Office itself decided to make these inquiries. The point at issue is the great divergence in the application of the Convention.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to examine his speech of 23rd June, and the reply on that day?

Mr. Brown: I should much prefer to see the result of this report; it has very important implications.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish detailed reports of retail prices, which could be based on the list of local prices sent in for the compilation of the cost-of-living figures, and rents paid by the working-class in the principal towns in the country, on comparable lines to the inquiries made in 1908 and 1912?

Mr. E. Brown: The inquiries which are made for the purpose of the official cost-of-living figures are designed only to pro-


vide a basis for statistics showing the average percentage changes, from month to month, in the average levels of retail prices and working-class rents in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a whole, and the information obtained is insufficient to serve as a basis for comparisons of the relative levels of retail prices and rents in individual towns. The two inquiries relating to 1905 and 1912 referred to by the hon. Member were specially made at considerable expense, and involved a great amount of elaborate detail.

Mr. H. G. Williams: How much of this increase is due to the increase in the price of coal since the selling schemes came into operation?

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR PRISON MUTINY (SENTENCES, REMISSION).

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any statement regarding the remission of sentences imposed on the persons concerned in the Dartmoor prison mutiny?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): In accordance with the undertaking given by ray predecessor in November of last year, I have considered this matter very carefully and have been in consultation with the learned Judge by whom the sentences were passed. As a result I have come to the conclusion that a substantial mitigation of these sentences can now be recommended without detriment to the interests of justice, and I have decided to advise that one-quarter of the sentence be remitted in each case.

Mr. Maxton: Is that in addition to the normal remissions that would be involved for good conduct?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. It will be in addition to the remission for good conduct that they would earn upon their sentences.

Mr. Maxton: Will it be both on the original sentence and the additional sentence for their part in the mutiny? Will they earn the ordinary remission and the quarter as well?

Sir S. Hoare: They will earn the ordinary remission upon their diminished sentences, in addition to the ordinary remission on the original sentences.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will that portion of the sentence that would have been remitted had they not been charged, and which, I presume, was lost when they were charged and convicted, be added to the remission?

Sir S. Hoare: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that 25 per cent. of the additional sentence is to be remitted. 1s 25 per cent. of the original sentence to be remitted?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. Let me reply by giving a concrete case. A man with a four-years' sentence would now have a three-years' sentence, one-quarter being remitted. He would receive in addition to that a remission for good conduct upon the three-years' sentence.

Mr. Shinwell: If a man had been sentenced to 10 years originally and was also sentenced to another four years for participation in the mutiny, would he have a 25 per cent. remission on the combined sentence?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. The remissions with which I am dealing in this answer are special reductions of the additional sentences which they received for the mutiny.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

PRIVATE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary since what date his warrant has been required to enable police or other Government authorities to listen-in to private telephone conversations; and what was the practice prior to that date?

Sir S. Hoare: It has always been the rule that listening-in to a private telephone conversation without the knowledge of either party should not be authorised except in special circumstances. There is no legal requirement as to the form in which authority should be given by the Secretary of State for this purpose, but in practice, if this authority is given, it takes the form of a warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State. The position is different if a subscriber himself asks the police to listen-in on his telephone. As my right hon. Friend the


Postmaster-General has already explained, there is nothing to prevent a subscriber from arranging for the police or anyone else to listen-in on his line through the agency of an extension line or other device, and in that case no warrant is required.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are these warrants only granted in specific cases where criminal activities are suspected, or are they also granted when the political views of an individual are in question?

Sir S. Hoare: I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member that, in accordance with precedent, I am not prepared to give detailed answers of that kind to questions in this House.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the legal right of those concerned in the warrant to know that the warrant has been issued?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not prepared to give further information on a subject of which the essential characteristic is secrecy.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary whether, without stating the number of occasions upon which his warrant to open private postal correspondence has been granted, he will say if the frequency of granting such warrants is increasing or decreasing?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that the number of occasions on which the public interest requires that this power should be exercised necessarily varies from time to time. To compare one period with another would, therefore, be misleading, and it would, moreover, be detrimental to the public interest to attempt to do so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Must the circumstances under which a warrant is granted be laid before the right hon. Gentleman personally, or can they be dealt with by a member of the permanent staff of his Department?

Sir S. Hoare: I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member that the Secretary of State personally deals with matters of that kind.

SPECIAL CONSTABLE, HARTLEPOOL.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. W. J. Lant, an employé of the West

Hartlepool trackless undertaking, was ordered to attend before a justice of the peace of the Borough of Hartlepool to be sworn in as a special constable, and was compelled to sign the required declaration although he had not volunteered for this service; and under what authority the magistrate acted?

Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries and am informed that the justices were acting under Section 196 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which provides for the appointment, in October of every year, of borough special constables who can be called on to serve on any occasion when the police force of the borough is insufficient to maintain the peace. I am told that Mr. Lant had been notified before his name was submitted to the justices and that he had then raised no objection: had objection been raised his name would not have been submitted to the justices.

Mr. Smith: If I inform the right hon Gentleman that Mr. Lant most emphatically protested, and was told he would be fined £5 if he did not sign will he take some other action to see that this matter is dealt with?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Is it suggested that in Hartlepool the police force is insufficient to maintain the peace?

Sir S. Hoare: This is a matter in which I have no responsibility. It is dependent upon the statutory enactments. I understand that under the Act of 1882 this procedure is practicable, but actually it has seldom, if ever, been used. I am also informed that in this case Mr. Lant was informed in advance of the proposal to include his name in the list of special constables, and it was only when he was asked to come up to make his declaration that he raised any objection. He was also told that no work was to be lost in order to put in an appearance, and that if he could not attend at the time specified, some more appropriate time would be arranged. He did not attend on the date of the summons, but he came to a later meeting of the court, and, after some discussion and explanation, he agreed to sign the declaration, intimating that next year he would prefer to be excused.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, since he has now told the House that this Act is seldom used, that


the justices failed in their warrant to state that a case of emergency existed and that no such intimation was afforded to Mr. Lant; and that Mr. Lant did protest and was threatened with a fine of £5?

Sir S. Hoare: I must not be taken as in any way criticising or supporting the action of the magistrates. It is not my business to do so. I have given the House the information at my disposal. This is, I believe, the first case of the kind that has occurred, and I cannot imagine it is likely to be a case of common occurrence.

Mr. Smith: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Greenwood: rose—

Mr. Sandys: On a point of Order. As the hon. Member has given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask another supplementary question?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that to me.

Mr. Speaker: There is really no point of Order here. At Question Time, when an hon. Member says that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment the established practice is that no further supplementary questions are asked.

Mr. Greenwood: I asked the right hon. Gentleman, because he quoted the 1882 Act, whether there was a police force in Hartlepool insufficient to maintain the peace, which I understood from him was one of the grounds on which this man was made a special constable? Since this obsolete piece of legislation is rarely used, will he be prepared to repeal it in order to remove temptation from the path of local authorities?

Sir S. Hoare: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but another hon. Member asked a further question. As to the first question the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, under a misunderstanding. The enlistment of special constables does not imply that the local police force is insufficient, but it does imply that they may be necessary in a special emergency in the future, and it is only for the purposes of an emergency that special constables are enlisted. In answer to his second question, I am inclined to think that as this is the first case of the kind that has

come to the notice of the Home Office, it is quite unnecessary to ask Parliament to go through the process of legislation.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I beg to give notice that on a suitable occasion I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

DISCIPLINE BOARDS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the constitution of the Metropolitan police disciplinary board; and will he consider the appointment of some independent persons other than police officers, and state if the present regulations give an accused officer the opportunity of being legally represented, and what further changes are contemplated in the method of procedure?

Sir S. Hoare: The disciplinary authority for the Metropolitan Police Force is the Commissioner, and from time to time he appoints discipline boards consisting of three members, a president of rank not less than deputy-assistant commissioner, a deputy-assistant commissioner or chief constable, and a superintendent, who exercise delegated powers on his behalf. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to appoint persons who are not members of the Force. The present regulations allow a defaulter to have another member of the Force as friend to assist him, but not to have a legal representative. In exceptional cases, however, arrangements are made to have a legal adviser present for the purpose of advising both the president of the board and the defaulter. No change in procedure is contemplated at present.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a full shorthand report taken in exceptional cases, so that the officers can have a copy of it?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the present strength of police officers employed in the uniformed branch and Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan district, and the number of these officers who are on a 10-year service agreement; and the amount of gratuity they receive at the end of such service?

Sir S. Hoare: The strength of the uniform branch on the 5th instant was 17,788, and of the Criminal Investigation Department 1,151. The strength of short service officers in the force was 1,135. On completing 10 years' approved service a short service officer will receive a gratuity related to his pay on leaving the force, amounting in the case of a constable to about £180 or £190, and to a proportionately larger sum in the case of a sergeant.

Mr. Day: How many police officers have been released from traffic duty since the traffic signals came into operation?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir; not without notice.

MOTOR SPEED OFFENCES (POLICE STOP WATCHES).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a lorry-driver was fined £2 and had his licence endorsed at Deddington, Oxon, Police Court on 26th November, for exceeding the 20-miles-per-hour speed limit, although the police admitted using stop watches which had neither been used nor tested for two years; and whether in view of this and similar cases, he will issue a circular to chief constables, calling attention to the desirability of all police watches being tested from time to time?

Sir S. Hoare: I agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that stop watches used by the police for the purpose of detecting speed offences should be tested periodically, and I have no reason to doubt that that is the usual practice. I will, however, take an opportunity of reminding chief constables on the matter.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his wish is carried out by the authorities, and see that the watches are tested at definite times, say, once a quarter?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. Apart from the Metropolitan Police I exercise no executive authority over the police, but it is customary in matters of this kind for the Home Office to furnish chief constables with advice from time to time. In London the police have their stop watches tested every six months.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to tender that advice to the authorities outside the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir S. Hoare: I have already said that I will take an opportunity of reminding chief constables.

CHIEF CONSTABLE, ROCHESTER.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary whether he has approved the appointment of Lieut.-Commander W. J. A. Willis, as chief constable of Rochester; whether there was no candidate from the police service who was considered sufficiently well qualified, or what exceptional qualification or experience specially fitting him for the post of chief constable was possessed by Lieut.-Commander W. J. A. Willis, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 9 of the Police Regulations of England and Wales; and what were the special circumstances which led him to approve the appointment of a candidate over 40 years of age?

Sir S. Hoars: Yes, Sir. The Rochester Watch Committee, having chosen Lieut.-Commander Willis for appointment to the vacant post, satisfied me that his qualifications were exceptional and that I could properly give my approval under Regulations 7 and 9 of the Police Regulations to their appointment. Before coming to a decision, the watch committee gave careful consideration to applications submitted by serving police officers.

Mr. Kelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what experience Commander Willis had as a constable before this appointment?

Commander Marsden: Is it not the case that one of the chief qualifications of this officer is that he rose from the lower deck of the Navy by merit to the rank of Lieut. -Commander?

Sir S. Hoare: It is perfectly true that this officer had a very remarkable career in the Navy, ending up in a post in which he was responsible for the training of 1,500 men. These, I imagine, were the facts which were taken into consideration by the watch committee of Rochester, and are facts which enabled me to confirm the appointment under the regulations.

Mr. Kelly: He had no police experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received the report of Judge Stewart's committee on mining diseases; and when he intends to introduce legislation on the same?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has not yet received this report, but I understand that it will be presented before the end of the present month. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on this point in the Debate on the Motion for Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill on the 19th of last month.

Mr. Griffiths: Does that mean that the Minister will bring in legislation almost immediately after he has received the report?

Mr. Lloyd: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to read my statement.

Mr. Cassells: May we take it that the report will be available to all Members of the House?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.

Mr. Muff: asked the Home Secretary whether, under the silicosis and asbestosis (medical arrangements) scheme, he will reimburse public health authorities the cost of making X-ray examinations upon workmen in view of the fact that accurate diagnosis cannot be made without such examination?

Mr. Lloyd: The examinations to which the hon. Member refers are not made for the purpose of diagnosing silicosis, which is a matter for the Silicosis Medical Board, but are initial examinations of workmen entering employment in certain processes to ascertain whether the workman is suffering from certain physical defects likely to predispose him to silicosis. The board arrange for X-ray examinations in special cases, but my right hon. Friend is advised that in general the object of these initial examinations is effectively secured without an X-ray examination. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend regrets that he does not feel justified in arranging that officers of local authorities should, except in cases where the board ask for one, carry out an X-ray examination.

Mr. Muff: Seeing that the duty of making this examination is imposed upon

the local authority, should not the Department or the industry pay the cost of the X-ray examination?

Mr. Windsor: In view of this coming under the medical arrangement scheme, are not the Department contravening their duty in handing over the duty to a local authority and not reimbursing that authority for the extra expenditure involved?

Mr. Lloyd: I think both hon. Members are under a certain misapprehension. This is simply a preliminary examination to eliminate certain men with physical defects, such as weak chests, from entering dangerous employments. These defects can, in the vast majority of cases, be detected by an ordinary clinical examination, although it is within the power of the board in special cases to provide also for an X-ray examination; and it is simply a matter of arrangement between the board and the local authorities whether these duties are carried out by doctor attached to the board or by the tuberculosis officers attached to local authorities.

Mr. Muff: May I—

Mr. Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that we have done only 35 questions out of the no upon the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING OFFENCES (FINES).

Mrs. Tate: asked the Home Secretary on how many occasions fines were imposed for offences under the Betting Acts in the years 1930 to 1935, inclusive.

Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a table of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the fact that a large number of these fines were inflicted on persons for what the well-to-do can do every day of the week with impunity, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is high time that the betting and gambling laws were reformed?

Sir S. Hoare: My hon. Friend will see that her Supplementary Question goes far beyond the scope of the original question.

Mr. T. Williams: When circulating the reply can the right hon. Gentleman supply figures showing in how many cases Tote


Investors, Limited, have distrained on the goods of credit betters who cannot pay their debts?

Following is the answer:

Separate figures relating to offences under the Betting Acts are not available. I can give figures showing the number of persons who were fined for offences of all kinds under the various enactments, including local acts and by-laws, relating to betting, gaming and lotteries, which were as follow:


1930
…
…
…
17,607


1931
…
…
…
16,332


1932
…
…
…
13,257


1933
…
…
…
14,516


1934
…
…
…
15,295


1935
…
…
…
17,090

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMS (CHRISTMAS CARD).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a form of Christmas card submitted by a firm of printers to Members of this House for their use, embossed with the central portion of the Royal Arms; whether such use of the Royal Arms has been authorised; and whether he has taken any action?

Sir S. Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this matter. The use of the Royal Arms by private Members of Parliament is not authorised except in so far as the central portion is embodied in the crest of the House of Commons, and this was pointed out to the firm in question. They stated that the use of the Royal Arms on the proposed Christmas card was due to a mistake, for which they apologised, that no orders for the card had been received and that the mistake would not be repeated.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUBS BILL.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Home Secretary whether he can indicate the approximate period of the present Parliamentary Session during which he expects to introduce the promised Clubs Bill; and whether he proposes to consult the Magistrates' Association before publishing finally the terms of the Bill?

Sir S. Hoare: As I have explained in answer to previous questions, I am not

in a position at present to state the date of introduction of the Bill. As regards the second part of the question, I have already received from the Magistrates' Association a very full statement of their views as to the provisions to be included in the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — POACHING (PENALTIES).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Home Secretary how many persons were convicted for poaching during the last year for which figures are available; and in how many cases defendants were sentenced to terms of hard labour?

Sir S. Hoare: The latest figures available are those for 1936. In that year 1,602 persons over the age of 17 were found guilty by summary courts on charges of poaching, and of these 21 were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. I cannot say in how many of these cases the imprisonment was ordered to be with hard labour.

Mr. Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some of the penalties ought to be revised?

Mr. De la Bère: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear a word.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Home Secretary whether he will refer to the committee now considering workmen's compensation the need for including in any amending legislation a provision to meet the costs by the insurers of any special treatment, spectacles, or surgical appliances required by the injured workman as a result of his accident and for which no financial provision is made at the present time, thereby causing great hardship to the sufferer?

Sir S. Hoare: I am advised that arrangements for providing special treatment and appliances fall within the purview of the Rehabilitation Committee under their present terms of reference, and I will draw the attention of the committee to the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Commander Marsden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of


Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the books recently published by his Department dealing with recreation and physical fitness for men and women, while extensive reference is made to gymnastics, ball games, athletics, swimming, boxing, hockey, cricket, lawn tennis, camping, and dancing, including ballroom dancing, no reference whatever is made to riding; and whether, in view of the great extension of riding facilities in this country during recent years, he will arrange to have this omission repaired in the next issue of these books?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): My Noble Friend fully appreciates the physical and recreational value of riding, and recognises the increase of its popularity in recent years. It has not been found possible, however, to deal adequately with every sport and pastime within the limits of size and price imposed by the desirability of ensuring as wide a circulation as possible for these handbooks. The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend will, however, be borne in mind, if further editions are called for.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Parliamentary Secretary issue a notice to the boys in the pits to ride on the ponies coming out?

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the discouragement caused to those now training for the teaching profession by the serious unemployment among recently trained teachers, he will communicate with local education authorities responsible for schools containing classes of over 40 children with a view to their increasing the number of classes and reducing their size?

Mr. Lindsay: The facts do not justify the discouragement alleged by the hon. Member, and in any case my Noble Friend does not see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. Such a course of action would be inadvisable at the present time, when the resources of the local education authorities are already being severely taxed to meet the requirements of reorganisation and the raising of the school-leaving age in 1939.

Mr. Harvey: Is not the Board aware that many teachers trained two or more years ago have not yet obtained work, and that more than a quarter of those turned out of college during the last year have not received posts in public elementary schools; and does that not produce great depression in the teaching profession?

Mr. Lindsay: The answer to the first part of the question is that the position has got steadily better in the last two years. In regard to the second part, I cannot give full particulars, but I would remind the hon. Member, that on 4th January, as I promised him before, there will be more exact figures. In regard to the third part, quite a different question is raised by the limitation of the size of classes, affecting not only the number of teachers but the space available in the schools.

COUNCIL SCHOOL, REIGATE.

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what conversations His Majesty's inspector of schools has had with the Reigate Education Committee about the scheme for the sale by the Reigate Town Council of a council school to the church authorities subject to the town council making a grant of 75 per cent. to the purchasers; and by what statutory authority this local education authority is selling a council school not surplus to requirements?

Mr. Lindsay: Representatives of the Reigate education authority discussed the general question of the reorganisation of the Reigate public elementary schools with His Majesty's inspector, who found that the authority were considering the possibility of selling the premises of the Cromwell Road council school to the church authorities. His Majesty's inspector made it clear that he could not express any opinion upon the legal aspects of this matter. Before the authority could effect such a sale in the manner indicated in the question, they would have to satisfy the Board on various points mentioned in Section 17 (4) of the Education Act, 1921, and in Section 8 (4) of the Education Act, 1936. The Board have not yet received any proposal for such a sale from the authority. If and when such a proposal is received, it will be for the Board to consider it in relation to the facts of the particular


case. Pending the receipt of the facts it would be premature for me to make any further comment.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NEW PLACES).

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the average cost for the last convenient three months of providing new elementary school places for children under 11 and and over 11 years of age, respectively, and the figures for the corresponding quarter 12 months before?

Mr. Lindsay: I have already supplied the hon. Member with the information for the second quarters of 1936 and 1937 respectively. Comparative figures for a later three-monthly period are not immediately available, but I will send them to him as soon as possible.

REORGANISATION.

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what proportion of the elementary school population of England and Wales it is estimated will be taught under reorganised conditions on 1st September, 1939?

Mr. Lindsay: Reorganisation appears to be proceeding at the present time at the rate of about 100,000 school places per annum. If this rate of progress is maintained, as my Noble Friend sees no reason to doubt, the number of additional school places in reorganised schools should, by 1st September, 1939, have increased by 250,000 above the figure on the 31st March, 1937. At that date 69 per cent. of the public elementary school population was in reorganised schools, and the additional 250,000 places should raise the percentage to 78.

Mr. Ede: In view of the fact that the school-leaving age is to be raised, will the hon. Gentleman impress on local authorities the desirability of hastening this matter?

Mr. Lindsay: I would point out to my hon. Friend that the full effect of the raising of the school-leaving age will not be felt until a year after the appointed day.

SCHOOL BUILDING GRANTS.

Major Whiteley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that

the conditions affecting the building of schools mentioned in paragraph 2 of Circular 1456, 1937, still prevail and are likely to continue, he will consider postponing the date, 31st December, 1940, as the end of the period during which the special rate of grant to local authorities, will operate.

Mr. Lindsay: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on nth November, a copy of which I am sending him.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.

Major Whiteley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, under present conditions, local education authorities frequently are not informed of the projected building of houses likely to contain children of elementary school age in sufficient time to enable the authority to make adequate preparations for provision of school facilities; and whether he will make arrangements to ensure that such information is invariably given by a building promoter to the local education authority?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board are aware that local education authorities have, on occasions, not been informed of projected building developments likely to affect the supply of elementary school accommodation in their area. It is, however, open to any county local education authority to make arrangements with the appropriate local authorities within their area to ensure that adequate notice is given to them of any proposed developments likely to necessitate additional elementary school accommodation. My Noble Friend does not consider that any action is called for on his part in the matter, which is essentially one for mutual co-operation between the authorities concerned. In the case of county boroughs and boroughs and urban districts which are local education authorities for elementary education, no such problem should arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (VISIT OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early date for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln?

["That, in view of the fact that at Madrid on 6th December, 1937, notwithstanding he bad, before leaving this country, given an undertaking not to take part in any activities liable to be interpreted as inconsistent with His Majesty's Government's policy of nonintervention, the Leader of His Majesty's official Opposition the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Limehouse) stated publicly, When we return to London, administered by Socialists and workers, we shall convene a public meeting to inform the people about the facts of the situation and unbeaten invincible Republican Spain,' this House declares that the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for Limehouse is guilty of a breach of faith and is unfit to again be granted a visa to Spain."]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. Friend's Motion refers to the conduct of a Member of this House, and I think that my proper course is to defer my reply until the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is able to be in his place.

Mr. Greenwood: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the reproof that he has given to the hon. Gentleman opposite—

Mr. Liddall: Wait until Monday.

Mr. Greenwood: —In raising a question of the honour of a Member of this House in his absence, I should like to ask him whether his answer postponing a reply to the hon. Gentleman really implies any reflection upon my right hon. Friend or suggests that there is a charge which he has to meet; and may I ask further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—whether he is aware that my right hon. Friend has most emphatically repudiated—because I spoke to him on the telephone this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech on this matter at this time.

Mr. Greenwood: I was doing my best to conform with the Rules of the House. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that my right hon. Friend has emphatically repudiated any suggestion that he has in any way infringed any undertaking he gave before he went to Spain?

The Prime Minister: My answer is not intended to convey any reproof to my hon. Friend or to express any opinion on the merits of the question which he has raised. I considered that I was merely

acting in accordance with what has been the general practice of this House in the past.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask for your guidance. Sir? If any hon. Member of this House feels aggrieved in consequence of something done by another individual in this House or outside, is he entitled to put down a Vote of Censure on him?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member asks me a general question of that kind, it is difficult to answer; but any hon. Member can put down a substantive Motion about anything.

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask you to guide the House as to whether you consider such a practice desirable?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter upon which it is for me to express an opinion.

Mr. David Grenfell: May I ask you, for the guidance of the House, whether there would be any limit to the number of questions of this kind that individuals—vindictive individuals—might choose to put upon the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I know there is no limit.

Mr. Sandys: Has not the Leader of the Opposition a special responsibility?

Mr. Stephen: Is not the matter left to the intelligence and good sense of Members?

Mr. Garro Jones: Further to that point of Order. May I ask you why you have just ruled that an hon. Member may put down a substantive Motion about anything, and whether that means also that the Prime Minister may be questioned upon such matters; and, if that is so, the limits you draw with regard to the subjects upon which the Prime Minister may be so questioned?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite another matter. The question that the hon. Member asks me relates to the Rules governing the putting of Questions. The Prime Minister is now being questioned on a substantive Motion which is quite a different matter.

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir, but may I put a further question to you, with great respect? While expressing no opinion on the merits of the hon. Member's question


if a Motion is put on the Order Paper by an hon. Member, does that entitle him to question the Prime Minister upon it and thereby to raise at Question Time all manner of subjects, and take up an endless amount of the time of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The only question submitted on the Paper is whether the Prime Minister will give time for the discussion of the Motion?

Mr. Buchanan: Before you interfere with any rights of Members may I ask that you will not do it simply because somebody has been injudicious enough to put a foolish Motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I can only say that I shall try to carry out my duty to the best of my ability.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGLISH COSTUMES (COLLECTION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is considering the acceptance of the offer by a private collector to present his collection of English costumes for permanent exhibition in a public museum; and whether he can see his way to placing the collection in St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, and making it available on the same days and hours as those on which the Victoria and Albert Museum is usually open for the instruction of the public?

Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend has had his attention drawn to this offer. Unfortunately, since very considerable space would be required in order to do justice to the collection, which I understand is abnormally rich in accessories such as underclothing, it would not be possible to provide accommodation for it in the Victoria and Albert Museum. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, is leased by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to London University, and is in use as an archaeological museum. It is not, therefore, available for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will this exhibition include the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall)?

Mr. T. Smith: What about the cap and bells that he wore in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION SCHEME).

Mr. Burke: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme for the reorganisation of the cotton industry, submitted to him by the Joint Committee of the Cotton Trade Organisations, and which has the approval of all sections; and whether, in view of this wide measure of agreement, he will make arrangements for Parliamentary time at an early date to give effect to these proposals?

The Prime Minister: The proposals drawn up by the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations have been submitted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and are under active consideration. In these circumstances, I cannot at present give the undertaking asked for.

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 15th October he promised that these proposals should be promptly and sympathetically considered by the Government, and, in view of that statement, will he do his best to expedite an early settlement of the position?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has only repeated the original question, and I can only repeat my original answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities are taking up the curative side of medicine to the exclusion of the preventive side; and whether he will take steps to impress on all authorities the importance of developing both sides of their health services equally?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir, but if the hon. Member will give me information of any cases which he has in mind, I will gladly make inquiries. I think local authorities generally agree with the importance of developing both sides of their health services.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL AREAS.

Briadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Health whether he


proposes to give effect to the recommendation of the rural housing subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee that a subsidy equal to that to be payable to local authorities should be made available to private enterprise for the erection of agricultural cottages?

Sir K. Wood: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is receiving nay consideration in connection with the legislation which I am proposing to introduce.

AGED PERSONS.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health the names of the housing authorities which have, in the last two years, made special housing provision for aged persons and the number of dwellings built, distinguishing between those authorities which have built houses or bungalows and flats?

Sir K. Wood: I am forwarding the hon. Member a schedule of figures giving the information which he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND ACQUISITION (SKIPTON AND LIVERPOOL).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what has been the result of the Skipton Urban District Council's negotiations for the acquisition of a section of the Airville Estate for the provision of a park, and what area it was proposed to acquire; what offer was made by the owners and what figure was placed on the land by the district valuer; and, if the negotiations have been abandoned, will he give the reason?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the negotiations were for the acquisition of an area of 14 acres, and that the price asked for by the owners was £4,000. The price recommended by the district valuer in a confidential report to the council was considerably below this figure, and the council consequently abandoned their proposal.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether his approval has been sought for the purchase by the Liverpool City Council on 1st December of licensed premises known as the Old Omnibus Inn, Old Swan, for the sum of £3,250; and whether, before giving his approval, he will satisfy himself that this is a fair price, in view of

the fact that there is no difficulty in regard to the provision of an alternative site for inn purposes?

Sir K. Wood: My approval has not yet been sought by the Corporation to the proposal to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give his close attention to this matter when it comes before him?

Sir K. Wood: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Minister of Health the number of schemes for supplying water in rural areas which have been approved in the last three years; and whether he will circularise local authorities to call attention to the need for providing water for cottages and farms in their areas?

Sir K. Wood: During this period, schemes have been approved for 2,400 parishes at a total estimated capital cost of £7,500,000. I have no evidence that local authorities are not fully alive to the need for proper water supplies to cottages, and they have ample powers under the Public Health Act, 1936, of securing this. As regards farm supplies, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 2nd December.

Mr. Levy: Are geological surveys made in every instance before the approval of the scheme?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot say; I will make inquiries on the point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: I have three questions on business to put to the Prime Minister. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I ask him first to be good enough to state what will be the business next week.

The Prime Minister: Monday and Tuesday: Coal Bill, Committee stage.
Wednesday: Consideration of Private Members' Motions


Thursday: Debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure with regard to Special Areas and Unemployment.
Friday: Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. Greenwood: May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman for what purpose he is moving to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night, and whether he has any statement to make as to the proceedings on the Coal Bill to-day?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the Committee will be willing to work under some kind of voluntary time-table so far as to-day's proceedings are concerned. I think we might well set ourselves the programme of finishing Clause 4 and making a start on Clause 5, and I venture to suggest the following time-table:

Clause 2, to be disposed of by 7 o'clock.

Clause 3, to be disposed of by 10.30 p.m.

Clause 4, to be disposed of by 11.30 p.m.

I would propose that the House should not sit beyond midnight, and we might devote half an hour to the consideration of Clause 5 before reporting Progress.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Patronage Secretary has had conversations through the usual channels and with hon. Members who are specially interested in the Coal Bill, and the time-table which I have suggested would seem to be practicable. I hope that we may count on the good will and co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House, because without such co-operation we shall not be able to achieve the programme which I have proposed.

Mr. Greenwood: I hope it will be understood that hon. Members on this side of

the House have no desire to take up an undue amount of time in discussing their Amendments, but in this matter we are very largely in the hands of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and it is very difficult to forecast exactly how far we may get by midnight if hon. Members' speeches are going to be a little longer than we might anticipate.

The Prime Minister: I had that in mind in making an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to co-operate in the programme.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that on Clause 2, which he expects to finish at 7 o'clock, very serious issues arise affecting urban district councils and municipalities throughout the country; and, in view of that fact, would he be prepared to reconsider the limitation to 7 o'clock of the time it is proposed to devote to that Clause?

Mr. Greenwood: We will see how the Debate goes. May I ask the Prime Minister, further, when it is proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Recess, and when it is proposed that it should resume in the New Year?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed that the House shall adjourn for Christmas on Thursday, 23rd December, and meet again on Tuesday, 1st February next.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Is it the present intention of the Prime Minister to allow any Parliamentary time before Christmas for a discussion of the foreign situation.

The Prime Minister: I could not say.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 124.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 6th December.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part 1.)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Batey: Would it be in order for us to have an indication of the Amendments it is proposed to call on this Clause? A Member finds it very difficult, if he is waiting to speak on an Amendment and finds that he has missed his opportunity of speaking on a former Amendment, to learn that you are not going to call on him. I say that especially in view of the Prime Minister's statement to-day that he wants this Clause by 7 o'clock. The Government should have been satisfied if they had got Clause 2 by 12 o'clock. The suggested arrangement has staggered some of us.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be unwise if I were to tell hon. Members exactly what Amendments I was proposing to call, and I say that for this reason. This Bill is very intricate and it is almost impossible for me to know beforehand how much the discussion on one Amendment may, in point of fact, cover points to be raised on a later Amendment which I may have meant to call. If I were to tie myself now to the calling of certain Amendments I might leave the Chair open to a charge of bad faith. I will indicate which of the Amendments on the Paper are in order, but that must not be regarded as an undertaking that they will necessarily be called. The first Amendment that is in order is that in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), in page 2, line 10, to leave out "other than searching and boring for coal." Then I come to two Amendments which are in the name of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). I take this opportunity of asking that hon. Member whether the Amendment in his name at the top of page 368, in page 2, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (2), is part of the same series of Amendments.

Mr. Peake: The Amendment in my name at the top of page 368 touches rather a different point and I would very much like to have a short discussion upon it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then I shall call that Amendment, which is in order. The next Amendment that is in order is in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and it will cover the two subsequent Amendments on the same point.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: My Amendment, in page 2, line 14, after "otherwise," to insert:
and promoting national negotiations for the purpose of securing unification in the settlement of wages and conditions of labour of mineworkers,
is of very great importance. I have searched the Order Paper and I do not see any other method of discussing the subject unless that Amendment is called.

The Deputy-Chairman: Part of the point that the hon. Member wishes to raise has already been disposed of by the discussion on Monday, and the other portion of the Amendment can be better raised on the last Amendment which I propose to call.

Mr. Griffiths: Shall I be in order in discussing the Amendment on page 368, in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) which deals with the wage standards of the workers employed in the industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment is obviously outside the scope of this Bill.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out
other than searching and boring for coal.
This Clause, which defines the duties of the Commission, does not include the powers of mining, and an Amendment to provide that was rejected; but nevertheless the Clause as it stands does confer upon the Commission the right to search and bore for coal, that is to say to undertake what I believe is frequently described as the pioneering work in the industry. To some extend the words that I propose to leave out of this Clause are related to Clause 15 which says:


On and after the vesting date it shall not be lawful for any person, other than the Commission or a person authorised by them by a coal-mining lease or otherwise so to do, to search or bore for coal.
To some extent it was considered not only the fact that under this Clause we are giving a right of a kind which the Commission would otherwise not possess, but also that under Clause 15 that right is to be to a substantial extent a monopolistic right, and it is in that sense that we have to consider these words. The whole sense of my Amendment is the complete opposite in principle of an Amendment moved from the other side of the Committee, an Amendment that we have already discussed and rejected on this Clause. My Amendment is an effort to relieve the Clause of a small element of Socialism—if I may use the word—which it contains, but we must discuss the Amendment on its merits and not merely on the ground of prejudice because. I do not happen to believe in Socialism.
In this world the pioneer is one of the most useful persons. My experience is that the pioneer is much more enterprising when he is an individual than a Government Department or a semi-Government Department can be. What this Commission is I am not quite certain. It seems to be rather on a Fascist than a Communist model. It certainly is some form of State enterprise. My general experience is that State enterprises are less efficient than private individuals, and less willing to take risks. If the Commission are given this right to search and bore for coal, I fear that they may start off—the essence of searching and boring is that only one of many efforts may be successful—by losing a certain amount of money and then become less enterprising, and the essential work for the development of the industry will not be undertaken properly by anyone.
There are three classes of people who may undertake this work under the Bill as it stands. First of all there is the Commission itself; secondly, existing landowners who desire to extend the area of their existing operations, but before doing so want to satisfy themselves that their geological predictions are right, who search and bore in the neighbourhood probably of existing undertakings; and lastly, there are the people who for general reasons are led to believe that there is coal in areas where it has not yet been

proved at all and who want to take the risk, and having taken the risk will feel that they have secured a valuable consideration in the form of knowledge of the existence of coal, and will obtain a lease for doing this work under such circumstances that either subsequently they will be able to obtain a lease for mining, or if some other person obtains a lease they will have the opportunity of selling to that other person the valuable knowledge they have obtained.
It is very desirable that the people who go in for pioneering should be permitted to go on pioneering. They should do it, and not this Commission. It is the venturesome people we want to encourage in order to get good results. My general experience is that Government Departments and governmental institutions lack the courage to take risks of the kind that are essential in this work of searching and boring for coal. It is in that sense that I move the Amendment.

4.11 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): We must, of course, discuss this Amendment on the basis of the Bill as it now stands. It is quite true that there is an Amendment to the subsequent Clause and that it would exclude from the assets taken over by the Commission coal which is as yet unproved; but as the Bill now stands the Commission will acquire at a figure decided by arbitration the coal which is both proved and unproved. It is that fact which really destroys the whole basis of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). What has been the process up to now? The so-called pioneer has in his mind that if he obtains the right to search and bore and he finds coal, he has probably obtained some option from the landlord to take a lease of that coal, which he can either work himself or pass on to someone else.
What would be the position if the Bill passed unamended in this respect? The unproved coal would belong to the Commission. There is, therefore, no incentive to this pioneer to go on to some of his land and to incur a considerable expenditure in sinking a bore hole in order to find coal which in the end belongs to the Commission. However adventurous a man is made by the hope of obtaining a profit in the end, I do not see that he


would be made adventurous by the prospect of finding a valuable property for someone else. Under Clause 15 we have preserved exactly the same procedure as goes on now. It is possible for the Coal Commission to do what the private landlord does. If the Commission does not want itself to incur the expense and the risk of searching for coal, it can, under Clause 15, do what the private landlord does—allow the pioneer company to do it on what terms are agreed, and those terms, of course, might include an option to take a lease at the end.
The reason why these particular words were inserted in the Clause is not that I think that the procedure on the Amendment will normally follow, that is to do the boring and searching for itself—normally a risky enterprise of that kind is much more likely to be undertaken under Clause 15—but under Clause 15 it is clear that if you want someone else to bore for you and you authorise him to do it, you really can do it only on the terms that if someone else finds coal he will be allowed to work it. There might well be a case where, from the point of view of knowing what the property was and knowing the true position as to developments elsewhere, the Coal Commission would want a certain part of their property proved but would not necessarily want it immediately developed. In these circumstances it would be very hard indeed for them to find some outside agency which would be prepared to take all the risks of proving the coal unless the Coal Commission were able to give them an option to develop it subsequently. The procedure under Clause 15 is probably the normal one that the Coal Commission will follow. But there may well be cases of the type I have mentioned where it would be impossible to get a pioneer or outside company to do this boring, where the Coal Commission, for the sake of the development of all its assets, would like to know what its assets were, and where, therefore, the only alternative would be for it to do it itself. In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: It is quite true that the power to search and bore for coal is a curious power. I may go to a man who is digging a hole in the ground and

say, "What are you doing?" and he may reply, "Digging and searching for coal." That might be quite untrue. He might be engaged in some entirely different operation and intend to take part in some other enterprise. It is like the case of the man who is engaged in "daily seeking work." You have to try to find out what is at the back of his mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the hon. Member ever seen boring take place? Does he not appreciate that when they set about boring for coal, it means erecting a very substantial plant?

Mr. Williams: You erect a substantial plant if you bore for anything else. The point at issue is, that I want to be satisfied that this provision will not be exercised for any other purpose.

Mr. Stanley: My answer is that it is only coal that belongs to the Commission, subject to certain other things which they take over. I really cannot conceive the Coal Commission to be so unintelligent that they will pay, as they must, first of all, a large sum of money to enable them to bore on a private landlord's ground, then spend a large sum of money in erecting a boring plant and making a bore with the object of finding some mineral other than coal which, when they have found it, will not belong to the Coal Commission but to the private landlord.

Amendment negatived.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from "of," to "granting," in line 13.
This Amendment and the following Amendment which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friends are practically together, and at the outset I should like to say, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends with whom I am associated with regard to this Bill, that we will do our very best to keep to the suggested timetable which the Prime Minister put before the House this afternoon, and will place our points before the Committee in as businesslike and as concise a form as we can. But, in view of the importance of Clause 2, which lays down the general functions of the Commission, and of the self-imposed restraint which we displayed on Monday last, perhaps I may be allowed to take up a few minutes in


putting my views on this Clause before the Committee. It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I read Subsection (1), as it would be if these two Amendments which I have placed upon the Paper were incorporated in the Bill. It would read as follows:
The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall be charged with the duty of granting coal-mining leases and performing such other functions as are prescribed by this Part of this Act.
The object of the Amendment is to qualify and define more closely the general functions of the Commission. The Committee will observe that we propose to leave out the words:
controlling and managing the premises acquired by them under this Part of this Act.
In order to understand why we propose to leave out these words, we have to consider what are the premises acquired. The premises acquired are of three forms of property. In the first place, there is all coal, and coal is defined in Clause 3 (4). Until I read that Sub-section I confess that I thought I knew what coal was. Besides all coal, the Bill proposes that the Commission shall acquire all mines of coal which hon. Members will find defined in Clause 37:
Mine of coal means a space which is occupied by coal or which has been excavated underground for a coal-mining purpose, and includes a shaft and an adit made for a coalmining purpose.
In addition to these two things, the only other forms of property acquired under the Bill are certain surface servitudes, which are rights attached to coal, and which cannot in law exist separate from them. If we substitute in Clause 2 (1) for the words "premises acquired" the words "all coal and mines of coal," we find that the Clause reads:
The Commission … shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing of coal and mines of coal.
That is not the intention of the Bill. It is not the intention of the Bill that in the ordinary commercial sense of the word this Commission shall control and manage mines of coal. These words seem to be calculated only to raise false hopes in the breasts of hon. Members opposite, and to raise unnecessary qualms in the minds of hon. Members on this side of

the House. The Commission's only function, once it has acquired the coal and mines of coal, is to grant, or refuse to grant, coal-mining licences, and this it will have to do for a long term of years, for the simple reason that nobody will spend a large sum in developing coal unless he is assured that he has some reasonably long security of tenure. The Commission will be in the position of a landlord who is granted a 60 or a 99 years' lease for building purposes. In this House my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), when answering for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard to their property in Paddington or elsewhere, denied that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners either control or manage in the ordinary sense of the word the conditions under which their property is held. So much for the words "controlling and managing the premises acquired." In the latter part of the Clause we intend to leave out other words. They are:
otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
We have to get clearly in mind what the relative positions of the new coal-owning body, that is, the Commission, and its tenants, the colliery proprietors, are to be. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) put forward the view the other afternoon that the Commission would be in a very weak position compared with the colliery proprietors, and they suggested that the colliery proprietors, by making a united front, would be able to beat down the Commission into granting leases upon exceptionally reasonable or low terms. In fact, the boot will be on the other foot entirely, and for this reason. The Commission will enjoy a complete monopoly. It will be the only mineral landlord in the country. As a colliery proprietor myself I can, to some extent, play off one landlord against another, but in future I am going to be in a corporation with complete monopoly powers. The powers of the corporation will be much greater than those enjoyed by the mineral landowners at the present time, for this reason. The Commission is to have what no mineral landlord has at


the present time, namely, the power to withhold his coal and refuse to grant a lease. Since 1926 colliery proprietors have been able to compel landlords to grant leases of their land. Under the Bill, the Commission will have absolute power to refrain from renewing or granting any leases of coal at all, and they will, therefore, be in the position of a dictator as far as the terms of the leases are concerned. Let us consider that the Commission, in carrying out its duties, has to have regard to the
efficiency and better organisation of the coalmining industry.
The words "better organisation of the coal-mining industry" mean, in common parlance, the business of carrying out amalgamations of colliery concerns. The Commission under Part II is to be charged with the duty of carrying out amalgamations, and by the words "better organisation of the coal-mining industry" there is no doubt that amalgamations are here contemplated. As the Clause stands at present it will be possible for the Commission to refuse to grant new leases or to renew any existing leases, except on the condition that the concerns are prepared to be amalgamated. They will be able to achieve, under this Clause what they may not be able to achieve under Part II of the Bill, under which they have to be able to satisfy a court of law of certain definite facts, which have to be proved. Under this Clause, by making amalgamation a condition of the granting of the lease, they can, in fact, bring about the desired results from their point of view without the difficult and expensive process of going before the Railway and Canal Commission.
We all have a common object with regard to this Commission. We all desire to see it playing the part of a good landlord, and it has hitherto not been thought to be any part of the landlord's concern to compel tenants to join together or to amalgamate one with another. It is unwise to put such complete powers as exist under this Clause into the hands of the Commission, and the words I propose are better calculated to define and make clear the position of the Commission as the landlord, and it is for these reasons that I move this Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. S. Clarke: I rise to support the Amendment. Much time was

spent on Monday night pleading for the inclusion in this Bill of some measure of nationalisation, and I think these Amendments aim at the opposite point of view, at preventing the inclusion of any such measure, either intentionally or unintentionally. The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) said on Monday that he considered nationalisation to be inevitable. I do not believe that to be the case. There will be great changes, and I think we are in the throes of those changes to-day, but I do not believe those changes will lead to nationalisation. I think that, rather than nationalisation, there will come in a new order, and that—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Clarke: My point was that we were anxious, in trying to alter these Clauses, that there should be no more State control than was necessary. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on 23rd November, defined very clearly the difference between nationalisation and unification, when he said:
The whole thing is for the purpose of getting a proper relationship between the Commission and the industry.… The main purpose of the Commission is to transfer the benefits of ownership from the 4,000 individual owners to the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1088, Vol. 329.]
I think that the Clause, as amended by these proposed Amendments, would perfectly fulfil that task. I do not believe that State direction of the industry is really intended, but as the Clause stands I think it might be practicable. I feel that the Commissioners will be the trustees of certain national property which they are charged to administer for the benefit of the industry, and, further, the scheme is financially self-contained. Again as the Bill stands at present the proposed loan is not even guaranteed by the Treasury. I believe, too, there is a risk that, as at present drafted, the Bill might allow of interference, by the granting or withholding of leases and so bringing pressure to bear on the industry. That I do not think is really intended, but that particularly applies later on in Part II of the Bill, where the Commissioners might compel amalgamation by withholding leases. I think also there is a distinct


risk of political interference, which is very undesirable. The Government would not be responsible for the results, whether financial or any other. Results would still be left in the hands of the people running the industry.
I do not suggest that the inclusion of these powers is intentional, but I do suggest that they constitute a real danger, and I feel sure that if the Amendments are accepted, the Bill will really be a better instrument to meet the intentions of those who drafted it.

4.35 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I agree with the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that this is an important Clause, but I do not agree with the rest of what he said, because I cannot see, even if you take into consideration the last part of his Amendment, why he wants to cut out these words and put in what he does in the second Amendment. I must say that, as a coalowner and colliery proprietor, one wants naturally to limit as much as possible the powers of the Commission, but this Bill is not entirely concerned with that matter. It has other objects, and I do not think there is anything wrong with the Clause as it stands. I agree that it could be dealt with later, as the hon. Member pointed out, but it seems to me rather important that when we are dealing with general provisions as to the functions of the Commission, we should put in exactly what those functions are. They must be clearly laid down. I do not like the idea, which is rather growing, that if you cut down the powers of the Commission on Part I of this Bill, which is the question of royalties, you can practically nullify the whole Commission and the Bill. Very nearly you can, and I do not think there is any harm in its being stated as it is in this Clause. I say that if you accepted this Amendment, you could not get in such a clear definition as is put in by the Clause, and I shall therefore vote with the Government on this question.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: It caused me no surprise to see this Amendment on the Paper. I expected that the coalowners would wake up during the Committee stage, and in my Second Reading speech I suggested that the prospects of the Bill in the future were somewhat ominous. This is a deliberate attempt to weaken the

powers of the Commission in the interests of the coalowners, as indeed one would expect. I do not see what objection there can be to allowing these people to manage the property that they buy. It is suggested that we should delete the very words that give these people the right to carry on after buying the property. They may enforce conditions which are unacceptable to the coalowners, and I feel sure they will, but I do not see that the coalowners ought to say that, because of some conditions unacceptable to them that may be imposed, these powers should not be given.
I had my say on the question of amalgamation on the Second Reading of the Bill. We have our fears on amalgamation from certain aspects, but I feel that the powers given to this Commission are not excessive by any means. We tried all day on Monday to increase their powers, but we failed, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not fall into the trap so early in the proceedings today. I warned him on the Second Reading that the coalowners and the royalty owners would come forward in this House in an endeavour to impose Amendments on him. I feel that the Commission ought to have the national interest in view in all their dealings, and I think the case for the Amendment ought not to be heeded by the President of the Board of Trade. I hope he will say that the powers given to the Commission are not to be lessened, and if, on the other hand, he can increase them, I shall be happy to support him in so doing.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I should state at the outset that I have some interest in the coal industry and in the direction of colliery undertakings. I would suggest to the last speaker, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), that it is quite possible that this new Commission may do things which an enot only undesirable to the coalowners, but which are undesirable to the miners themselves. It will be recognised, for example, on all sides of the Committee that the coal industry to-day in regard to the happy relationship between colliery owners and miners is better than at any time during the last 10 years. I think there is great ambiguity in the Clause as it stands, and when the hon. Member for Ince referred to his desire that any amalgamations should be in the national interest, I would


remind him that in the original Bill, which was introduced by Lord Runciman when he was President of the Board of Trade, it was clearly stated that those amalgamations should be enforced only having regard to the national interest. The President of the Board of Trade will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see any such qualification in this Bill. I suggest in regard to the general provisions as to the functions of the Commission, that it is important that they should be as precise as possible, and not include any ambiguous phrases, which may have a very different effect with regard to other Clauses in the Bill that we are not now able to discuss. On these general grounds, that there is a comparative ambiguity in the Clause as drafted and that the proposed Amendment would make the matter clearer, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give consideration to the Amendment.

4.42 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who moved the Amendment, seemed to think that the omission of these words and the substitution of others would make this a better Bill for the mineowners. I think it is a good enough Bill for the mineowners at the present time. He referred to some remarks made by my right hon. Friend and myself in the Debate last Monday to the effect that this Bill put the Coal Commission at the mercy of the mining lessees. It does so. He said that the mining lessees would be at the mercy of the Government or the Coal Commission, because at the present time lessees can go to half-a-dozen different owners competing one against the other and, therefore, get an advantage, but that now they would be dealing with one owner only. As a matter of fact, in the old days also they were dealing with one owner only, so far as the coal which they were mining was concerned, but the owner with whom they were dealing then was in a far better position than the Coal Commission will be under this Bill. Under this Bill, unable themselves to use the mines, unable to employ their own people directly in the mines, the Government or the Coal Commission will be at the mercy of the lessees in future, for this reason: At the present time the coal-owner with whom the hon. Member may

be treating can very well withhold his coal.

Mr. Peake: No, he cannot. The coal-owner under the Act of 1926 can go to the court and get an order to work the coal.

Colonel Wedgwood: On terms much more onerous. So far as royalties are concerned, the owner can perfectly well say that the royalty offered is too low, and therefore he must get a bigger royalty if he goes to the court. He is not forced to lease his coal in the same way that the Government will be forced under this Bill.

Mr. Peake: But the whole point is that the Government have an absolute right to withhold all their coal in a future lease.

Colonel Wedgwood: The hon. Member entirely misunderstands the situation. The Government are the owners of all the coal in the country, but they will be subject to a dead rent of £3,000,000 a year, which they have got to find in order to pay interest on the money raised for buying the mines. Therefore, they have to be certain that they lease enough coal to make that amount of money apart from the additional sum which they hope to make. The coalowner of to-day, as long as he does not work his minerals, gets away without any taxation upon those minerals. In future, the Government, holding the minerals, will have to pay this very heavy dead rent all the time. The hon. Member who spoke for the coalowners knows the effect of a dead rent upon the mining lessee. The lessee who has a dead rent to meet every year whether he is working the minerals or not, is forced to develop the mine. The dead rent principle is intended to drive him to get the maximum amount of production out of the mines. In this case we are putting the Coal Commission under exactly the same drive and are forcing them to do the same thing under a fine of £3,000,000 a year. That is why I say that the position of the Government in future vis a vis the mining lessee, will be weaker than it is at the present time. The Coal Commission, not being able to work the mines themselves and not even being able to hold up the mines because of the dead rent which they have to pay, will be in a far worse position in future and so far from there being any profit to the industry from this Bill, there is great likelihood of bankruptcy on the part of the Coal Commission itself.

4.47 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): May I remind the Committee what this Sub-section does? We have already dealt with the first part, which is negative and which sets out what may not be done under the Subsection. We now come to the positive part which sets out what may be done. We attach great importance to the words which the Mover of the Amendment wishes to omit because they are, in fact, the terms of reference to the Commission. Indeed, this Clause as a whole is the charter upon which the Commission will work. We say that their actions should be carried out in the interest of the coalmining industry. That is the interest which they must have in mind, and it seems to me that if there was not some general idea of that kind in the Clause it might be possible for them, for example, to force up rents for all sorts of reasons. We wish them to deal with the property in the common interest.
The hon. Member said that this was outside what had hitherto been regarded as the function of the landlord, but there must be a world of difference between the private landlord's function and the function of the universal landlord. In the one case the private landlord is actuated by a variety of reasons and considerations as to his action. On the other hand, the universal landlord has to bear in mind the public interest as well as the particular aspect of the public interest, which is the interest of the industry. If we had not these words there would be no general terms of reference at all to the Commission. As regards the words about controlling and managing premises, these are merely general words, but the other words "and otherwise" which it is proposed to leave out cover not merely the granting of leases but also the power to negotiate and to see that whatever is negotiated is carried out. The power of not granting leases is inherent in the power of granting leases and the hon. Gentleman fears that, with the power of not granting leases, it will be possible to force amalgamations on the industry. That seems to me a somewhat remote possibility. I think if you rely for the general reorganisation of the industry upon the possibility of not granting new leases as the old leases fall in, your re-

organization will be put off until the Greek Kalends.
As regards the words, which by another Amendment, it is proposed to insert, to leave out the general terms of reference and to say that the functions are only to be those prescribed by the Act, that would involve a very long catalogue of what the Commission would have to do and, generally speaking, I think it would be less desirable to do that than to leave the matter in general terms, always bearing in mind the governing factor that in everything which they do they are to consider the interest of the industry. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Second Reading, there is a great deal of difference between the policies of nationalisation and unification. The idea here is that the property is administered for the interests of all concerned in it. There is no reason to suppose that having that in mind, the Commission will go out of their way to treat in any unfair or improper manner those very persons upon whose taking of the leases, the capacity of the industry to function at all will depend. This Amendment precludes the possibility—which I can see in the alternative of nationalisation—of carrying on for the benefit, in the lower sense, of the State rather than for the benefit of the industry. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendmenet, and we ask them to leave these words as they are.

Mr. Peake: In view of the reassuring explanation of the Secretary for Mines, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No!

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Before this Amendment is disposed of may I, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, offer congratulations to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the excellent speech which he has just made, setting out so clearly the collectivist principle. There has been quite a transformation in the enlightenment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman but I wish he had proceeded a little further. He has made it clear that the exclusion of these words would deprive the Commission of its main function, namely, to promote the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the industry. It is a pity that these words were not made a little clearer and


stronger in order to meet what we regard as the true interests of the industry and those engaged in it. Hon. Members opposite who are responsible for this Amendment do not appear to like the Bill at all.

Mr. Peake: We supported it on the Second Reading.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the surprising feature of the case. They supported the Second Reading of the Bill, but the hon. Member has made it clear that he dislikes some of its principal features. For example, he objects to the Commission having a monopoly. He objects to the Commission being responsible for managing and acquiring premises. He objects to the Commission being charged with the promotion of efficiency in the industry and he fears that the Commission may withhold leases from those who wish to work coal. We imagine that the inclusion of these words are imperative. Without them the Bill is of little value and we therefore congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his desire to retain them.

Amendment negatived.

4.56 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: I beg to move in page 2, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of getting a fuller explanation of this Sub-section than we have had so far. This amalgamation question is a serious one, and we want to know exactly where we stand in regard to these proposals. The Sub-section says:
The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act.
The Minister should not object to telling us definitely whether the Sub-section does not imply that, as far as amalgamations are concerned, nothing is to be done except under the arrangements to be made in accordance with the later part of the Bill. We would like an assurance that the refusal of leases will not be made the opportunity of carrying out amalgamations, not under the directions and the control set out in the later part of the Measure. As to the conditions which the Board of Trade can lay down, I gather from what the Minister has said that the

Bill is a most comprehensive one. Personally, I have always taken that view, but, that being so, surely we ought to have some indication of the kind of policy which the Board of Trade proposes to lay down under this Sub-section
I do not ask for anything detailed, but we should have some general indication of how it is proposed to use this Subsection and, perhaps, a statement to the effect that, as far as this Government are concerned, it is not proposed to interfere with the arrangements which have been come to between the employers and the miners' union. Under the Bill as it stands there is a complete power of interference by means of the withholding of these leases by the Government. We do not know what any future Government may do. That is a question which we cannot go into now, but I think we are entitled to ask the present Government for a general indication of what the policy of the Board of Trade is likely to be. It is a little difficult to follow some of the wording. The Sub-section says:
including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
I agree with hon. Members opposite about the importance of safety, but safety at present is in the hands of the Mines Department, which deals with it very effectively. Is it proposed to take such a question as that out of the hands of the Mines Department and transfer it to the Commission? Under the Sub-section as it stands, it looks as though some part of that safety work might be handed over to the Committee. I think, on an ambiguous Clause like this, we have a right to ask for an explanation. I do not say that, in general, I object to the powers which are being given, but we ought to know what is to be the long-term policy of the Government in this industry, and whether it is proposed that the Board of Trade is to interfere in the general arrangements.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I intervene, not with the intention of cutting down the Debate, but to explain a matter which may not have been clear to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and may not be clear to the Committee. The principal reason for the introduction of Sub-section (2) is that I feel, and I think that hon. Members will feel, that there should be an opportunity for Parliament to hold a particular Minister responsible for what is


done by the Commission. Although I do not think that any of us would want to see the ordinary day-to-day work of granting leases and supervising the carrying out of leases questioned and debated in Parliament, I feel that in a matter of this importance there should be an opportunity for any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with some of the broader aspects of the working of the Commission, to question the Minister responsible, to raise it on his Vote, and in that way to enable Parliament to express an opinion. It is only by using the words of Sub-section (2) that it is possible to bring the broader aspects of the working of the Commission within the scope of Parliamentary review. I do not think my hon. Friend would object to that.

Sir G. Ellis: No; we only want a definition.

Mr. Stanley: With regard to the sort of direction to be issued, I tell the Committee quite frankly that as at present advised we do not think that the powers of the Board of Trade under this Subsection are likely to be often exercised. We have given the Terms of Reference to the Commission, that they should carry out their duties as landlords in the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the industry, and we should propose mainly to leave them to it. We have put in one specific reference, namely, to the safety of working. What my hon. and gallant Friend and I had in mind there was that probably the sort of direction that would be issued was that when the Commission were granting leases, before granting them they should consult His Majesty's inspectors; that there should be liaison between the Mines Department, through the inspectors, and the Commission in the granting of leases—

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1937.

2. Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1937.
3. National Health Insurance (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Act, 1937.
4. Merchant Shipping (Superannuation Contributions) Act, 1937.
5. Rutherglen Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
6. Hamilton Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.
7. Clydebank Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1937.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to" and, "in line 23, stand part of the Clause."

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: When we were summoned to the other place I was about to give an instance of the sort of direction which I thought might be given to the Commission, and the instance I had in mind is one which I consider to be of supreme importance. I said on the Second Reading Debate that the last century was a time of unlimited expansion and that there is now a much greater need for the orderly development of our coal resources. Many of us looking back over the last 20 years must have regretted to see agricultural land becoming new coalfields while old coalfields become derelict. We have to bear in mind the possibility of the discovery, perhaps in some new parts of England, of wholly new coalfields at a time when there are ample existing resources in the mines which are already sunk and where social services already exist. In those circumstances the Minister and the House might feel that a direction should be given to the Commission that leases should not be granted for the development of the new fields in circumstances which might have disastrous effects on the old coalfields. That is why I think it is imperative to retain this Sub-section or to have a Sub-section in terms of this kind, so that Parliament will have some say in the matter. Something to a similar effect is found in the Act setting up the Forestry Commission.

Mr. T. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear what is meant


by the words "including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal"?

Mr. Stanley: I have told the Committee exactly what we have in mind. It is that before granting new leases the Commission shall consult with the inspectors as to the lay-out of a new pit and try to get a lay-out which is most conducive to the safety of the working.

Sir Stafford Cripps: Does that mean the safety of the miners and the workers, or the safety of the surface?

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry that I am not so conversant with the technical terms of the industry as the hon. and learned Member. I thought that safety in the working of coal would convey to hon. Members the safety of those who were working in the mines.

Sir S. Cripps: This is rather an important matter of interpretation. If it is the safety of the workers of the coal it is rather important—if the right hon. Gentleman does mean that—that the words should be altered.

Mr. Stanley: I will look into the point. What we mean is what I have said, but if it is necessary, we can make a slight alteration in the wording.

Mr. Shinwell: In the event of the Ministry of Mines inspectors discovering that in a particular area there is a large accumulation of water which may affect the safety not only of the working but of the men concerned, do we understand that the Commission is to withhold the granting of a lease until the safety of the men is assured?

Mr. Stanley: I will repeat what I have said. We might issue a direction to the Commission to consult with the inspectors either upon a renewal or the granting of a new lease with regard to the question of safety in working, and no doubt the Commission would be guided by them. There is no intention under this Subsection for the Minister to interfere with the day-to-day work of the Commission The Commission will have to carry out the duties of a landlord, and by this Subsection we shall be able to control the sort of development I have mentioned, and give the House of Commons a right to hold the Minister responsible in a

general way with the broader aspects of the work of the Commission. I think the Committee will agree that the retention of this Sub-section is essential.

Mr. Peat: Under Part II of the Bill very considerable power is taken to restrict the freedom of the individual; he may be forced into an amalgamation. I gather that it is not the Government's intention to use this Clause for the purpose of forcing amalgamations on possible lessees, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider incorporating some words to make this absolutely clear.

Mr. Stanley: I will try to make the position perfectly plain. The Commission must have the same rights which a private landlord now has, and when a lease falls in he should have the power to renew it to the person who holds it, or, if that is not conducive to the better working and efficiency of his property, to give the lease to an adjacent owner. It is not my intention or the intention of the Government to issue a general direction under the terms of this Sub-section, that leases are not to be granted or renewed unless amalgamation takes place.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I am sure the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) was right from the Government's point of view in putting down this Amendment. He told us that he did so for the specific purpose of obtaining information from the President of the Board of Trade. He said that he was anxious to know whether the Commission will have the right to withhold a lease in order to compel coalowners to do something which the coalowners do not want to do. I can well understand the hon. Member concentrating upon that, but may I remind him that I have known many cases where the coalowners themselves have threatened to refuse to work the coal unless the workers themselves agreed to the coalowners' terms. I am referring to a number of lock-outs which have taken place in the industry.

Sir G. Ellis: The hon. Member is putting it generally. I put it specifically with regard to amalgamations. My case was that we should not compel amalgamations under this Sub-section and be deprived of any right under Part II of the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I agree, and I ask myself whether the motive for the Amendment might not have been something in addition to extracting information. The Amendments of hon. Members opposite leave me with the impression that they want the Commission to have certain limited powers to search for coal and to grant mining leases, not in the interests of the nation as a whole, but in the interests of shareholders. Acceptance of the Amendment would take out any question of national safety and national interest. I want to follow up the question I put to the President of the Board of Trade as to what is meant by the words:
all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it will empower the Commission to consult the divisional inspectors before granting a lease. But consult them for what purpose? Will they discuss with the inspectors the best system of working that particular coal? One of the wastes of private ownership has been that the coal-owners themselves have not on all occasions worked a seam to the best advantage from the national point of view. Let me put this specific question. Will it empower the Commission to say to a colliery company, "We do not want to interfere too much with your concern, but we feel that if we grant you this mining lease the peculiar nature of the coalfield demands that you shall work the pit on the long wall retreating level, which, judged from the national interest point of view, would be the best." There is a large body of opinion among mining engineers that with a long view of mining certain areas and certain pits would be much better worked on the long wall retreating method which makes better roads than the long wall advancing method. From the shareholders' point of view it means that they would have to wait a few years before getting any return, but if they work on the retreating system they will ultimately recoup themselves. As one who has had experience of an excellent seam worked on the long wall retreating method, I am anxious to know whether the Sub-section will give the Commission the right to discuss with the colliery company the best method of working the coal. It would be an advantage to our deliberations if it could be made perfectly clear what is and what is not intended by these words.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: It seems to me that the most important reason for including this Sub-section in the Bill is that it makes it possible for the House of Commons to have some measure of control, it makes it possible for hon. Members to put questions to the Minister. I am sure that in all parts of the Committee there will be agreement on that point.

Mr. Stanley: I would like to make it clear that they will be questions on general policy, and not on the day-today working.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes. I am sure that a great many hon. Members on all sides of the Committee feel that it has been extraordinarily difficult to exercise any control over some of the bodies that have been set up in recent years. In the case of the Coal Commission, which is an exceptionally important body, it is most desirable that it should be possible to put questions in the House concerning the Commission. Many hon. Members have felt great difficulty in asking questions about such bodies as the London Passenger Transport Board and the British Broadcasting Corporation. As regards the wide powers that are to be given to the Coal Commission, I am sure hon. Members are in agreement with the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade. That statement is, to some extent, a departure from the policy which the Government started in connection with some of the other bodies, but in so far as concerns the giving of more control to Parliament in getting information, I think that change is desirable.
However, I am a little anxious lest the Board of Trade which, after all, is a political body, might use its powers under this Clause to give directions to the Coal Commission. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) referred to a particular method of working coal. Under the Bill as it is at present, there will be nothing to prevent the Coal Commission from making stipulations in a mining lease. This Clause really concerns directions which the Board of Trade gives to the Coal Commission, which is a different matter. What we wish to avoid is that the Board of Trade should put pressure on the Commission for political purposes. My right hon. Friend


gave an illustration of a possible set of circumstances in which, if a new coalfield were discovered, it might not be in the general national interest to work it. That was a very well-chosen illustration, which I am sure appealed to every hon. Member. I can think of many other occasions on which directions might be given, not necessarily by my right hon. Friend, but subsequent Presidents of the Board of Trade, which might not meet with the general approval of all parts of the House. It is for that reason that I feel a good deal of apprehension about this Clause.
It is clear that the Commission have very great powers, and that if the Board of Trade were to direct them to use those powers in certain directions, the Commission could become very oppressive. I listened with interest to the remarks made a few minutes ago by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I entirely disagree with him. It seems to me that the powers of the Commission will be very much larger than the power of any colliery company or combination of colliery companies. The Commission will be in a position of monopoly, and by refusing to grant a lease, it will be able to destroy any colliery company in the country. For that reason, I feel that we have cause for a certain amount of anxiety, and I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend that it is not intended, except in exceptional circumstances, that the Board of Trade should give any directions to the Coal Commission.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am glad to see that the Patronage Secretary is in his place. I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be getting rather nervous about the speeches that are being made. It is obvious that his hon. Friends are filled with anxiety, not about what the right hon. Gentleman who is at present President of the Board of Trade will do, but when they visualise a Labour President of the Board of Trade sitting on that bench and giving directions under the Bill, when it becomes an Act. I cannot explain their anxiety in any other way, and I am glad that the Patronage Secretary is present to hear the mournful dirge. I think all hon. Members will agree now, as they did on the Second Reading, that

we are giving fairly extensive powers to the Coal Commission, and since the Commission are being given those extensive powers, it is desirable that two things should be done.
First, it is desirable that the Commission's terms of reference should be made as clear as possible. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in moving the deletion of what I thought were the most important words in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, wanted to leave the Commission with little to do. Apart from the job of leasing coal to colliery owners, he wanted to deprive them of every power. The hon. Member withdrew his Amendment, and Sub-section (1) remains as it was. Whatever may be the power that is vested in the Commission, it is laid down that they shall exericse it in conformity with what is stipulated in the Sub-section. The Commission now have extensive powers which, frankly, my hon. Friends and I do not want to give to a Commission under private enterprise. We pressed that point on Monday last, but we did not convince hon. Members opposite, although I believe we shall convince the country eventually. We believe that when it is a question of giving wide and extensive powers to anybody—powers of human life, for that is what this means—they cannot be exercised safely except under Government direction and under the control of Parliament.
The second thing which is essential when a Commission of this nature is granted powers to work national property, to manage it and to look after it, is that there should be an opportunity for the representatives of the public in Parliament to criticise and to review the work of the Commission and the way in which it is performed. That, at least, is one of the things which Sub-section (2) does. It makes the Board of Trade responsible for issuing general directions, and since the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Trade will be responsible for giving general directions, I think it follows that the President of the Board of Trade will be responsible for the general policy pursued by the Commission. He will have power, if the Clause is included, to give general directions, and having that power, he will be responsible for the general policy of the Coal Commission.
I wish that the Government were not quite so anxious to whittle down the Bill


I hope they will remember that the last time they started to whittle away a Bill, they whittled away the whole of it, and they whittled away from the Government the author of the Bill as well. They lost both the Bill and the author. I hope the authors of this Bill will not meet the same fate; if they wish to avoid it, they must stand by the Bill now and not whittle it away at the request of the coalowners in the House and—what I am much more afraid of—the coalowners who are not in the House. The powers of the Board of Trade to give general directions cover all matters appertaining to the safety of the working of coal. Hon. Members who know anything about the managing of a pit know that the safety regulations are those embodied in the Coal Mines Act and the Regulations made under it, but there are matters of wider import that can be included under the provisions of this Clause.
My hon. Friends will shortly move an Amendment dealing with a problem which is a very grave one in their areas and in many other areas of the country, the problem of subsidence. That is a general problem which affects the problem of the safety of the miners. I cannot see how the question of the safety of working coal can be separated from the safety of the men who hew the coal. The method of working coal is now rapidly being changed owing to the mechanisation of the pits. The result of mechanisation is that there is now in the coalmines far less ripping than was previously the case. There is a conveyer face of from 120 to 150 yards long, there are two main roads, one at each end, and huge areas of coal are now removed without making enough dirt and rubbish to fill the gobs. The consequence is that tight-packing is becoming a lost art, and the miners are paying with their lives for the loss of that art. There are now little packs, and that method is increasingly used. We believe it has serious consequences from the point of view of safety. It creates huge reservoirs of gas in the pits, it makes the roof more difficult to control, and it endangers the lives of the miners. It is creating problems for the next generation, because subsidence will be infinitely more acute then than it is now.
I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that when effect is given to the powers which are

taken in this Clause, he will consult with the inspector of mines. I am very glad of that for one reason in particular. There are still one or two areas of coal in the South Wales coalfields which have not been worked, and although there may be a great ramp to get that coal worked before the Bill comes into operation, those areas may not be taken, and in the event of the Coal Commission being asked to grant a lease for the working of that coal, they would go to the divisional inspector of mines at Cardiff and ask him to tell them what general directions they should give as to the way in which the pit should be worked. I believe that the divisional inspector would give the directions which he has given in his report. I asked the Secretary for Mines whether he would enforce the recommendations in the report, but he said that he had no powers to do so. Although he may not have powers under the existing regulations, he will have powers in the case to which I am referring, to enforce those recommendations which are shared by every experienced miner in South Wales and by every competent mining engineer who is free to express his views. If the divisional inspector at Cardiff were asked about the general directions that should be given, he would probably recommend the measures which he recommended in his report, namely, that if they want to work the pit, they must work it by such a method that there is tight-packing and that the gobs are filled. A Scotsman, I think, has devised a new kind of tippler known as the Maclean tippler, which makes it very much cheaper to bring the dirt out of the pit than to pack it in. The consequence is that the dirt is brought out of the pit. In the old days, when one went to a pit, one saw 200, 300 or 400 trucks filled with coal, but nowadays one sees hundreds of trucks filled with dirt. The Maclean tippler starts to work—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member had better keep to the Amendment, for what he is saying now will open up a wide discussion.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter affecting the safety of the working of coal which comes under this general direction because it is not covered by the Coal Mines regulations. It will be possible under this Sub-section to give such general directions. The development of the unworked areas of


coal will be in the hands of this Commission and under the general direction of the Board of Trade. I welcome the Subsection because it gives us an opportunity in this House to ask questions about it. One of the tendencies in the development of public ownership of which I am rather afraid is the setting up of outside bodies, like the Unemployment Assistance Board and the London Transport Board over whose administration we have no control. I welcome this Sub-section because it will give us an opportunity of bringing under review and of criticising the work of the Commission. It will also enable the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope a President of the Board of Trade belonging to my own party before long—in a general way to direct and control the development of the industry in the future so as to avoid the terrible mistakes that have been made in the past.

Sir G. Ellis: In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after "coal," to insert "and the prevention of subsidences."

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. You will observe that the Amendment in my name, after "coal," to insert "and the damage that may be done by mining subsidence," is somewhat similar to the one which my hon. Friend has moved. May I ask for your Ruling whether it will be in order to deal with both subjects on this Amendment and then to have two Divisions?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not certain what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means by the word "damage." Perhaps he will be good enough to explain.

Colonel Wedgwood: I mean that under the present system damage done to the surface is sometimes compensated for by ex gratia payments. I am anxious that the Bill should not deprive the sufferers of the small amount of damage that they get at present ex gratia. It is important that we should have among those subjects about which directions can be given by the Board of Trade damages in future

similar to the damages paid at the present time.

The Deputy-Chairman: The only point that troubles me about what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says is that I am doubtful whether the Commission has any power to pay anything. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to raise that point on another part of the Bill.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is really part of the question of the prevention of subsidence. In the case of an existing lease it is a question of damages done under that lease, but in the case of a new sinking in a new field, it is a question of the prevention of subsidence and the liability for damage. On both those questions it is vitally important that the Board of Trade should be able to give general directions to the Commission as to the method of meeting that particular problem.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am now seized of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's point. It would, obviously, be in order to discuss what instructions the Board of Trade might give, either for the prevention of subsidence or for putting terms in the leases to compensate those who suffer. That is as far as we can go on this Clause.

Mr. E. Smith: Your latter observations. Captain Bourne, are very helpful to the Committee The purpose of my Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to give to the Commission general directions for dealing with subsidence. My hon. Friends and I are not speaking on this question for ourselves only, nor are we speaking for the political party which we represent. We are speaking for a large number of urban district councils. I and several hon. Members are also speaking in particular for the City of Stoke-on-Trent and for a large number of property owners from whom we have received letters. The city which I represent has also had a deputation to the Minister of Mines on this issue. I have a good deal of evidence to show the desirability of dealing with this question. I know this part of the country fairly well, and throughout the area in villages and valleys one finds communities suffering from subsidence. I know of no city in the country that is built on a coalfield to the extent that the city for which I


am speaking is built. What is causing us some concern is the fact that there are still 4,500,000,000 tons of coal under the city and the immediate vicinity that still remains to be mined. I know the working-class fairly well and I know that in all areas there are to be found careful thrifty people. Thousands of them have Scraped and saved for years and have put their life's savings into purchasing their own houses. I want to speak particularly for them. They are having to spend pounds on repairs to their properties owing to subsidence, and we say that now that the Government have decided to compensate the royalty owners to the extent of £60,000,000, it is reasonable to suggest that some part of that amount should be used for the purpose of taking adequate steps to prevent subsidence in future.
Builders have to take precaution against subsidence and in the area of which I am speaking it costs about £25 per house to take the necessary precautions against subsidence. Is it fair, simply because people are living in that area, that their houses should have to cost £25 more? The people suffer in other ways. Not only do they suffer from the direct effect of subsidence on their own properties, but they suffer indirectly because the rates are bound to be higher in such a district than in others because of the effect of subsidence of municipal property. The cost for repairs to the municipal building due to subsidence was £50,456. The council received from the colliery proprietors £39,250, making a loss to the municipality of £11,206. The same thing applies to a sewerage work where the cost to the municipality was £1,000. We can, therefore, understand the concern of municipal and urban district councils that their position in future should be safeguarded so that they shall not be affected by subsidence to the extent that they have been and that the Board of Trade should have power to give directions to prevent it taking place in future.
I have a letter from the Town Clerk of Stoke-on-Trent. I do not propose to read the whole of it because it would take too long, but I want to give from it a few illustrations of the serious effect of subsidence upon the city. They built a large technical institute in Longton. One week you can go past the institute and see where the contractors have been at work pointing where the cracks have occurred

A few months afterwards you can see cracks occurring in another place. One could give illustration after illustration of that kind. I want to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines to the effect upon people who have purchased their own property. Many of them are miners who are using their human energy and are being exploited to an extent undreamt of in days gone by. After rendering that service to the industry they are also affected in the way I am explaining.
The Education Committee is affected, too. It is proposing to construct a number of new elementary schools. Many of them are in course of erection, and the extra cost in order to counteract the damage due to subsidence is as follows: Carmountside Senior School, £6,500; Chell Senior School, £6,500; Blurton Junior Mixed and Infants School, £5,500; Goldenhill Infants School, £2,000. The municipality decided to embark on a large housing scheme, and, owing to its being affected by subsidence, they are having to make the foundations of reinforced concrete. This extra precaution will cost from £27 to £41 per house. After that evidence, and in view of the fact that £66,000,000 is to be paid in compensation to the royalty owners, surely the Government will be prepared to consider the serious effects of subsidence in the particular district of which I have been speaking.

Lord Apsley: Who were the owners of the royalties in the particular cases which the hon. Member has quoted? Who gave the leases to the mining companies? Was it the municipality?

Mr. Smith: Other hon. Members will be speaking, probably the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is very well acquainted with this district. He informs me that these come under the Duchy of Lancaster—or most of them do—in view of the fact that this is going on the records we had better be careful what we say. Some of them come under the Duchy of Lancaster.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Mander: This is a matter which particularly concerns my constituency and the area generally of the Black Country, where mines were worked out a number of years ago but where subsidence still


goes on. I know of working-class houses in my own constituency which have sunk, and there is one historic place in the neighbourhood, Moseley Old Hall, where Charles II was once in hiding after the Battle of Worcester, where subsidence has taken place. Further, and this is of much more importance, a Liberal Club at Portobello in my constituency is in danger of sinking—[Interruption]—not politically, because it is doing extremely well in that respect, but it is in danger of sinking physically. I very much hope that it may be possible to give powers to the Commission when granting future leases to lay down such terms as will ensure such compensation as may be practicable in cases of this kind.

6.5 p.m.

Lord Apsley: We are dealing now with one of the difficulties which are bound to crop up under this Bill. This is one of the problems connected with nationalisation, and I am very glad that hon. Members opposite are beginning to find out how difficult these matters are. I hope they will press the question of who is to be made responsible for subsidences. At the present moment any subsidence is well covered by the terms of the lease. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] In nearly all cases it is, because the surface of the land belongs to the owner, who draws the royalties—unless he has sold them; and in case he has sold them there would be—at any rate in most cases there is—a clause in the deeds saying who is to look after the subsidence, and the colliery company is made responsible. Where the owner of the land is the royalty owner himself, he sees to it that the colliery company is responsible for paying proper compensation; he has that put in the lease, and that is clear. When a municipality has coal which is being dug underneath the confines of its district, presumably it has sold out the royalties, and in doing so has covered itself in the case of damage arising from subsidence.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Noble Lord must really know that in most cases the separation between the surface and the mineral rights took place many hundreds of years ago.

Mr. E. Smith: Surely the Noble Lord is also aware of the large amount of legal quibbling which goes on, and which in-

volves municipalities and other property owners in expenditure amounting to thousands of pounds which they are never able to recover.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The Noble Lord must know that municipalities cannot own mineral rights. So far as South Wales is concerned, although we suffer a good deal from subsidence nothing is paid in compensation to the owners of cottages.

Lord Apsley: Surely the right to work the coal must have been sold at some time or other, either by the landowners or the municipalities.

Sir S. Cripps: The rights were generally sold before the municipalities acquired the land; the mineral rights had already been severed from the surface rights. If a municipality were conscious of the fact that there were minerals there they would have no power to acquire minerals. They can only acquire the surface.

Lord Apsley: That is exactly the sort of case which we on this side of the Committee hope to see dealt with by this Bill—the case where coal is being worked and the rights had been sold before the municipality arose. That is a case where the Commission should step in. The same observation applies also to ancient monuments, whether it is the case of a Liberal Club or not. They should be protected by the proper authorities. I hope the Minister will make the position clear on this point. If the Commission is to take over the coal throughout the country who is going to be responsible for damage by subsidence? It will not be the surface owner, because he has no rights in the minerals whatever. The Commission, naturally, will not pay itself compensation, being only the owner of the minerals below the soil, but it should have power to see that compensation on a proper, fair and equitable scale can be secured from colliery companies who cause subsidence.

Mr. MacLaren: On a point of Order. If this Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would mean that the Board of Trade had to do their best to prevent the subsidence of land owing to mining operations. I have an Amendment to Clause 21 dealing with compensation for subsidence. As far as I have been able to follow this discussion, it seems to be going on round the point of compensation for subsidence, and I should like to ask whether that will


preclude us from discussing the subject later on my Amendment.

Colonel Wedgwood: On that point of Order. We discussed this matter with Captain Bourne, when he was in the Chair, and he agreed that the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and of myself dealing with damage could be discussed simultaneously. They are Amendments concerned with instructions from the Board of Trade to the Coal Commission as to how they are to deal with this subject. The Amendment to Clause 21 provides that part of the surplus—this purely imaginary surplus which some people dream of as accruing to the mining industry under this Bill—may be used to compensate people for subsidence. It is desired that there should be instructions given to the Commission as to how to deal with two completely different problems—subsidences which occur under mining leases which have been granted, and subsidences which may occur under fresh leases in areas which have not yet been opened up.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his advice. I think the matters are quite distinct. So far as I can see at present, the discussion on this Amendment, if it is kept within proper limits, will not interfere wth the discussion on the Amendment to Clause 21.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I am not going to deal with the question of compensation. I want to try to prevent subsidence occurring. The Clause speaks about the national interest and also about the safety of the workmen. The national interest cannot be served if, as the result of coal-mining operations, we get depressions on the surface of the ground all over the country and at the same time get heaps of the pit refuse dumped on the surface. We ask that the Board of Trade shall be given power to instruct the Commissioners to try to prevent that happening. It can only be prevented by close attention being paid to the system of working the mines, and we as mining Members claim that we can bring intimate practical knowledge to bear on that point. One way of preventing subsidence is to see that the packing or

stowing underground is done as completely as possible. When coal is extracted it must leave a space. If six feet of coal is removed at one spot and later another four feet of coal and later another five feet you are removing 15 feet of coal from those underground workings, and as time goes on—for it takes a long time to show—the presence of that space of 15 feet underground will reveal itself in the form of a saucer-like depression on the surface. That is what will happen unless steps are taken to stow the workings completely at the points from which the coal has been taken.
At the present time there is no control over the working of the mines in this respect. The mineowner, thinking of profits, may feel that it does not pay him to stow the workings. He gets out all the coal, and the debris is brought to the top of the pit and deposited anywhere. If that is done the workings will not be kept up as they ought to be. If we can get the Board of Trade to say that the débris in the workings must be stowed in a way which will fill up as much of the space as possible, we shall protect the national interest by preventing those subsidences which spoil the surface of the ground. Even if it is not possible completely to stop all subsidence, it would be so small a scale and so gradual that the surface would not be seriously affected. In the second place, by doing this we should be looking after the safety of the men. If large areas of space are left underground they become reservoirs of fire damp, and it only needs a fall of roof or a change in atmospheric conditions for that fire damp to swell out into the roadways and create a danger to the workmen.
This Clause makes reference to the safety of the working of the mines, and that can only convey one meaning, the safety of the mine worker. What we are asking is that imperative orders shall be given that when coal is worked there must be complete stowing of the underground workings. If that is done we shall have gone a long way to secure the safety of the surface of the earth in the national interest and to secure the safety of the men who are working underground. I hope that hon. Members realise the implication of this matter and if they do, and the suggestion is carried out, there will, in the long run, be no


extra expense on the community. Last night we were agitating for the removal of heaps on the surface, and discussing what expense would be involved. If this matter is dealt with before the heaps arrive you will not be faced with the expense of removing them, and an economy will be effected which will benefit the community as a whole. I hope that the Committee will see that this proposal is carried out when the Bill comes to be worked.

6.16 p.m.

Sir G. Ellis: I happen to be, I think, the only Member of this House who was on the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence. Examples have been given to-day by hon. Members, but if they read the evidence carefully which was placed before the Commission they will find many examples more horrible than have been given to the Committee to-day. The upshot of it is, that, so far as the coal-owners are concerned, they are either responsible or not responsible for subsidence. If they are responsible they have to pay, and if they are not responsible an added burden will be put upon them.

Colonel Wedgwood: Suppose they do not know whether they are responsible?

Sir G. Ellis: Somebody will soon take the trouble to find out. If they are not responsible, an added burden is to be imposed, and we are entitled to ask whence is coming the means to meet that burden? The right hon. Gentleman who raised the matter suggested that it should be taken out of the global sum, but that would be very unjust to the royalty owners, because you would be taking something out of their compensation, which they are to receive for what has been taken away from them. That either belongs or does not belong to the coalowner.

The Chairman: I am afraid I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but it is clear that any question of suggesting that compensation should be paid out of the global sum could not come under this Amendment.

Sir G. Ellis: I will not pursue that argument. I think the suggestion was made on the general question that there are some hardships and I admit at once that

that is so. There is the hardship and the problem where the land has long been worked out, and where subsidence of any kind has not occurred. Somebody then buys the property unknowingly, and later on subsidence takes place of which he had never had any notice. That is truly a hardship. On the other hand, there is the examination of the deeds, particularly in the case of a local authority. It is the duty of the local authority to look into this question and to find out to whom the land belonged before, and what its condition is. On the Royal Commission we found out that many local authorities had deliberately put buildings where they knew that subsidence would take place. That happened particularly in South Wales.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Perhaps they had no other place to put them.

Sir G. Ellis: We were on the question of avoiding subsidence. When it was suggested to them that they might have combined together and established a school, say, for two or three districts and sent their pupils by rail to a school where no subsidence would take place, they went up into the air and said that they were not going to join with anybody. If hon. Members will look into the documents relating to the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence they will find many of the points raised to-day carefully examined and answered, both in the evidence and in the report.
A recommendation was made that there was hardship in certain circumstances, and the instance was given of the small owner. The way in which it struck most members of the Commission was that small house-owners often bought the land on which their little houses were built without understanding in the least what they were doing, and that something in the nature of fraud was perpetrated by the people who bought the land as a whole and sold off each little bit. They professed to sell it including solicitors' charges, deeds and everything else. The small owner knew nothing of those things and took the deeds for gospel. Later on, they found out that they had to pay for the expense of subsidence, as hon. Members have pointed out to-day. That was instanced in the report as a case in which some kind of compensation might be justified.
It is another matter when you come to ask who should pay the compensation. As owners, we are perfectly entitled to say that we ought not to have charged on us anything more than we have reasonably agreed to pay. If you are going to take up a special case and give a special subsidy—because this is nothing else—it ought not to be paid by people who have contracted themselves out of the liability.

6.22 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: This is, to most of us over here, a very old question. It was as a result of agitation in this House that we finally got the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence inaugurated somewhere about 1922 or 1923. After taking an enormous amount of evidence, with which I am familiar, they produced a report for which I have nothing but praise. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member who has just spoken signed that report. The report includes the proposal that a small householder who suffers from mining subsidence should be entitled to damages from the mining lessee. That report was made by a very conservative Commission in 1924, but it has never been acted upon. It has been treated ever since as a dead letter by the Mines Department and by the President of the Board of Trade. A case which was good enough in 1923, and persuaded the hon. Member opposite that something must be done, is infinitely stronger to-day when coal has been ripped out in such a way that people are suffering all over the country and not merely in North Staffordshre. The damage that is being done today is greater than it was in 1922.

Sir G. Ellis: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that there has been an increase in subsidence. I should like to know whether that is right because at the moment I do not think it is correct.

Colonel Wedgwood: The amount of coal being got to-day is much greater.

Sir G. Ellis: The prevention of subsidence is being carried out in a much more scientific way in these days, and, generally speaking, we can say that subsidence is not increasing.

Colonel Wedgwood: I do not know about that. All I can say is that the damage being done is far greater to-day than it was in 1922. The unfortunate

small householder, who may have a mortgage of £90 upon his house, is losing his money. This ruthless injury to the property of the small man is still continuing, although the Commissioners reported over 10 years ago that something should be done to remedy that state of affairs. That being so, we are right in taking this opportunity of asking the President of the Board of Trade to include in the instructions to the Mining Commissioners something concerning subsidence and the damage caused by it. The report of the Royal Commission suggested that the compensation for damage should be paid by the mining lessee.

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman unnecessarily, but I want to try to help the Committee. I want to point out here that the Amendment does not deal with the payment of compensation, which will come up when we reach the proper Clause.

Colonel Wedgwood: We are not working to a time-table on this side of the House.

The Chairman: I understood that there was an informal time-table.

Sir S. Cripps: There has been no agreement whatever on this side of the House as regards any time-table at all.

The Chairman: I am sorry if I made a mistake about that, but I hope that hon. Members at least understand that I did not for a moment suggest that there was any time-table which was enforceable. I was merely trying, so far as I could, to help the Committee to get through the business in the shortest time.

Mr. Stanley: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no timetable and no agreement, but he would surely agree with me that there was an understanding that we should try to keep to the time limit suggested by the Prime Minister as far as practicable in order to get through in the shortest time. There is no enforceable time-table, and no agreed plan, and none is observed, but we should try to make as much progress as possible.

Sir S. Cripps: I wanted to make it clear that no time-table of any sort or kind is in operation, and there never has been. The Prime Minister suggested a certain time which he hoped would be kept to, but that was entirely without agreement so far as the Opposition was concerned.

Sir Charles Edwards: When I was consulted on Tuesday, I think it was, I refused to enter into any agreement for to-day. I said, "We shall see on Thursday." From our standpoint there is no agreement at all.

Colonel Wedgwood: I hope that I shall be absolved from any desire to extend the Debate. I did speak on Monday and I made the shortest speech on record. I want to keep strictly within order and I do not think it was in order to refer to compensation on this Motion. We want from the President of the Board of Trade some hope for the people who are suffering from mining subsidence at the present time and an assurance that their condition will not be made worse by this Measure and that the instructions issued by the President of the Board of Trade will at any rate protect from the increasing danger those people who have some sort of protection at the present time. I might illustrate this by the leases made of the Duchy of Lancaster minerals, in my borough of Newcastle. The minerals are leased to the Wolstanton Colliery Company. Whether the Duchy of Lancaster or the colliery is liable for damage by subsidence on the surface has never yet been decided. The lessees, the Wolstanton Colliery Company, do make an ex gratia payment to people whose houses are damaged.
In one case brought to my notice a man got £50 for his house tumbling down and because he was a poor man they gave him £25 more. He got £75 for a £300 house. As I see the matter, the lessees will be able to say, under the Bill: "We are no longer responsible for the payment of any damages whatever. The Government have taken over the minerals, they have leased us those minerals, and we no longer have any responsibility or any liability. Any liability is theirs." The Duchy of Lancaster, the lessors, again ex gratia, support the church at Etruria. The church is being undermined, and frequently shows signs of coming down, and the Duchy of Lancaster provide the money to hold the fabric together. That is under the present system. Are the Duchy of Lancaster and, in future, the Coal Commission, to do nothing? Are they going to say, like the mining lessees, "We are now national, and need not be charitable. The Duchy no longer own the coal; they own Government stock"? Then there

will be no compensation for these people, either in Wolstanton or at Etruria.
This is not only a question of mining near the surface. They are going down deeper and deeper. The Wedgwood factory is built on land which has coal underneath it. Forty years ago my father bought the coal under the works to a depth of 2,000 feet, which in those days was considered to be ample to protect us from any subsidence whatsoever. But nowadays they are going down underneath that 2,000 feet, ripping out the coal from below, and all our expensive tunnel ovens and other erections, which depend for their safe working upon absolute stability and rigidity, are in danger of going. By that danger we are being driven out; we are going to abandon our works and build outside. We have bought all the minerals—you may be sure we have bought them all—under a 400-acre piece just on the borders of Stoke-on-Trent, where we are putting up a new factory which, as we hope, will be safe, and a new garden city, where we have not to put down these expensive cement floats under the houses. It is all very well for hon. Members to ask why we do not put our houses where there will be no subsidence. There is not an acre in Stoke-on-Trent which is not liable to subsidence. In Newcastle it is not quite as bad as in Stoke, but it is getting pretty bad. There is no place where you can put a school, you cannot lay a main for gas or electricity, you cannot put down sewers, which may not be smashed at any moment. In these circumstances this question is a very live question.
Take the question of future leases. We have bought the coal under this estate—I am only taking it as an example of what anyone engaged in building undertakings may encounter. We bought the minerals in order to avoid having to put down, underneath our factory and houses, cement foundations. What is our position? We have protected ourselves to the best of our ability against subsidence, but the Coal Commission come along and say, without any instructions from the right hon. Gentleman, "We cannot allow this valuable asset of ours, this coalfield under these 400 acres at Barlaston, to lie idle. We must have the coal out. It is true that it is not very workable at present, but we may get a small royalty for it, say 3d.


a ton or something of that sort." If they do that, they are going to ruin the property beyond any possible compensation. Under the Second Schedule the responsibility is on the owners to provide reasonable safeguards against subsidence, but now the owner who has bought a bit of safe land is suddenly to be told, after he has built his factory or his house: "It is true that when you owned your own coal it was safe, but now we own it, and, as it has not been worked, we intend to work it." It means that £500,000 of capital will be destroyed because the Coal Commission pays no attention to the value of inadequately protected property. Is that to be allowed to go on? Under the Second Schedule, if no precautions are taken against damage, no compensation can be claimed, but no compensation could possibly pay for the destruction of all our new factory.
They are now going down so deep as not only to undermine one man's property, but to destroy property that is some way off. The effect on the surface spreads out at an angle of 60 degrees, and when you get down to 5,000 feet below the surface, property on the top is endangered over a half-mile radius, even though there is no actual mine under the surface property at all. It is not possible now to say whether any particular subsidence is due to one mine or to another. Anyone going down on the North Western Railway will see that outside Tamworth, between Tamworth and Atherton, a new Lake District is being created in Warwickshire. Land is slipping away on both sides of the line, lakes are forming, and the railway company are spending an enormous amount of money in raising their line year by year another foot. The railway company own the minerals under the railway line, but that is no protection, because, when the mining is very deep, it is not necessary for it to be underneath the actual structure. That is the danger, and it is becoming far worse with the new system of getting coal. Whole towns, and not merely houses, are liable to destruction. In my borough of Newcastle, in the town portion, which has been built on for 800 years, all the property has 70 feet of coal underneath it. Under this Bill, that coal will become Government property. Whether they will pay for it or not I do not know but, if they do, obviously they will want to work it, and, if this 70 feet of coal is taken out,

it will not be any particular house, but Newcastle itself, which will vanish under the water. It is low down on the Lyme brook, and, instead of there being a town there, there will be a lake stretching from the Lyme watershed down to the southern boundary of Stoke-on-Trent.
It seems to me that the Mines Department and the Board of Trade have not in the least considered this great question of subsidence. They try to shut their eyes to it. Because they did not like the report of the Royal Commission, they have tried to forget that that report was ever made. They have tried to forget that there is a justifiable complaint from the small property owners; they have tried to forget what it is costing the ratepayers of all these undermined localities. I am told that it will be the same with Sheffield. If they take the coal out from underneath Sheffield, they will be abandoning all these people to complete ruin. What are the Government going to do? Are they going to tell the Coal Mines Commission that valuable property must not be destroyed; are they going to tell the Commission that coal underneath valuable property need not be bored and explored? Are they going to tell them that the slight compensation which people get under the present system, whether from the lessees or from the mineral owners, is to continue?
We shall discuss later, on Clause 21, whether compensation will be a charge on the royalties. But now, when we first raise this matter, we think it due time to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not in the interests of any party, but in the interests of the best class of working people in this country—the people who have made small savings and put them into their houses—What are you going to do to these people? Are you going to ruin them? Are you going to deprive them of something which at any rate they have at the present time? Are you going to destroy that belief in ultimate human justice which still unites this country in spite of all that the party opposite do?

6.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has dealt with this question from the point of view of persons having property or houses on the surface. There is also the consideration, if I may put it forward, of the colliery company, who


would like to know what their liability may be under this Bill as regards compensation for damage which occurs on the surface. I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade, when he replies, will give some explanation of how the Government propose to handle this question of subsidence as a whole, because it is not clear either what liabilities there will be on the colliery company or what compensation there may be for persons who own houses on the surface. That is one of the most important elements in this Bill, and I do not think it should be left in any doubt. Therefore, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that, now that we are discussing this question of subsidence, he should give us some clear indication of what the Government have in their mind, first, with regard to liability, and, secondly, with regard to compensation.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I am more concerned at the present moment about prevention, and I support the Amendment heartily in the hope that all the Members of the Committee will give us their support so that it may be carried. I have already sent to the Minister quite a number of cases in my own constituency with regard to property that has completely collapsed. Whole streets have completely collapsed. The houses were purchased mostly by working colliers, who have paid from £200 to £300 for them. They have received not a farthing of compensation, and have been deprived of all accommodation. I was rather surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis). He spoke as a coalowner, but I should have thought he would have represented the community interest. He will agree that someone should be liable for the payment of compensation when there is obvious damage to property caused by subsidence. Someone really ought to pay compensation when it is obvious that, as a result of the working of minerals under property, that property is damaged.
This Debate indicates clearly that it is not sufficient to nationalise royalties, and that we ought to nationalise the mines as well, for in that way, of course, we can certainly solve the problems that are confronting the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the land."] And the land

as well. However, we cannot do that; but sufficient information can be obtained to prove that it is possible to prevent, on a very large scale, the subsidence that is now taking place. The coalowners, during the last few years, have adopted a new technique in working seams of coal. They are throwing pressure of the roofs on to the seam itself. They do that by advancing the face at the fastest possible speed. It is now worked out mathematically. In order that they shall not be troubled with having to engage too much labour, and that they may reduce overhead costs, they either pull in the roof behind the face, which means that the whole roof is caused to collapse, by taking out the props, or they adopt what is known as either the strip system or the draftboard system. They allow enormous reservoirs for gas behind the seams and bring most of the rubbish to the surface.
I am hoping the Minister of Mines will come to South Wales shortly. Anybody who travels on the main line from London to Fishguard cannot fail to see what is happening at Llanharran. It is within a few hundred yards of the main line from Paddington to Fishguard. Hundreds of tons of rubbish have been brought out of the mines and placed on the side of the line. One of the beauty spots in the Vale of Glamorgan has been made an eyesore. They are having to tip by adopting a kind of aerial tipping system. One can see that the surface is actually sinking although the mine is not more than 14 years old. The coalowners should be compelled by the Commissioner to stow those gobs, or, as they are compelled to do in other countries, by a system of hydraulic packing, see that the roof is maintained. They are compelled in Germany to do that. We have already had public money advanced, and sometimes fairly substantial sums, to subsidise certain areas that have been flooded as a result of subsidence. We have had debates in this House, when the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has spoken with regard to flooding in that particular place. Most of that area was flooded through subsidence. We can see what is taking place on the side of our main line. The same thing is happening in other parts of Wales. Perhaps in Wales we suffer more than most places; perhaps more than any place except Stoke, because the valleys are very


narrow and the houses have to be constructed in terraces. I should like to tell the hon. Member who talks about school children being taken miles from certain villages just to suit the convenience of the coalowners—

Sir G. Ellis: I did not say miles. I said that they could have been moved, and would have been but for the local authorities.

Mr. Williams: It is quite impossible for that to be done unless you are prepared at the same time to transport the whole population. Houses in some cases have collapsed. If the valleys are nine to 12 miles long, does the hon. Member suggest that the children should be taken out of those culs-de-sac into some meadows where coal may not be, just to suit the convenience of the coalowners, in order that they may be able to exploit the minerals in future. It shows that the hon. Member is viewing this problem purely from the point of view of vested interests, and not from that of public interests. It is possible to prevent this subsidence. It is also possible to prevent an enormous number of face accidents taking place year by year. They are tending to increase, because of the method adopted by the coalowners in working coal these days. It is the best method from the coalowners' point of view. No one can complain about it from an engineering point of view, but the result is a heavier death rate, so far as the mining population is concerned, and social inconvenience to the municipalities. I am quite sure that the health of hundreds of people is affected by the damage done to sewage mains and other social services. If it is only to preserve the enormous amount of social capital, as well as individual capital, that is at stake, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I have listened with great interest to the Debate. There seem to be two quite different subjects involved. It is perfectly true that all over the country there are either big or small private owners of the surface who bought their surfaces without knowing that mines were being worked underneath. This is not confined to South Wales, but is the case in Yorkshire and elsewhere. Most of those people bought with a short title, without proper investigation, and sometimes shortly, sometimes years afterwards, subsidence

has started, and they have found their houses coming down or cracking. In those cases there is nobody liable to compensate them to the extent of one penny. In some cases, where minerals have been worked at an even lower depth, a few mineral owners have made ex gratia payments, but there is no legal liability. Even in the short time I have been in the House, I have heard this question raised by South Wales Members several times, and they have asked for some alteration in the law to make some one liable to compensate the owners of small property.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was in the House a short time ago when I gave a ruling on this. He cannot discuss the question of compensation. It may be impossible to avoid a certain reference, but the question of compensation will come later. Now we are discussing preventions.

Mr. Spens: Now we are discussing a suggestion that somehow or other in future subsidence should be prevented. I believe it is admitted that there is no known method of coal-mining that does not create subsidence. It is perfectly true that if, after you have taken so many acres of coal out you fill up the vacuum by putting back other stuff, you may stop or mitigate the amount of subsidence; but when hon. Members suggest that the Board of Trade should be bound to give directions that, after the Bill is passed, no coal should be mined without steps to prevent subsidence, they are asking for the industry to be shut up altogether. If they are asking, not that subsidence should be prevented, but that all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate it, that is quite different. That may be what they have in mind.

Mr. E. Smith: Read the Amendment.

Mr. Spens: I appreciate that they say that the present methods of coal-mining about which I know something technically, result in certain possibly dangerous situations to which they have referred, but nobody has yet told the Committee during this Debate what is the economic difficulty. [Interruption.] Yes, I come down to the economic factor, because, if the industry is to survive, we have to sell our coal abroad. You cannot compel foreigners to pay more for British coal than they have to pay for


coal coming from other countries in competition with British coal. Hon Members opposite say that no coal in future should be taken unless this tight-packing method is followed. I want to know what would be the economic effect of that. That is a practical question. In granting renewals, the coal Commission may, in granting every new lease, make conditions.
One of the matters which, of course, will have to be dealt with will be the relation between the new lessee and the surface owner. It is impossible at this stage to discuss the provisions in the Schedules, but it is clear that the question of subsidence has been fully considered by the Government, and to suggest the opposite is obviously not accurate when one looks at the Second Schedule. Whether the provisions are sufficient or complete will have to be discussed when we get to them, but I suggest that it would be wholly undesirable that the Board of Trade should be expressly responsible for giving directions on this subject. Surely the whole scheme of the Bill is that the Commission should be responsible for negotiating the detailed terms of mining leases. One of the most important provisions will always be that relating to the position of the particular mineral lessee as regards compensation for subsidence, and the lessee's rights of withdrawing support from the surface. One hon. Member asked what the Government had in mind as regards the liability for subsidence of mineral lessees. Surely, if he reads the Schedule he will be able to form a very fair view of what the Government has in mind in this respect. But, to return to the actual Amendment before the Committee, it is clear that the only question is whether we are to add to this Clause an express provision that the Board of Trade should give a direction that reasonable precautions should be taken to minimise subsidence. In my view that is highly undesirable. It is obviously a matter for the Commission, and they will have to go into it on every occasion when there is a new lease.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that those who are responsible for the Amendment only expect the Government to take reasonable steps to prevent subsidence

Apparently he has not taken the trouble to read the findings of the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence which reported in 1927. Some Members of the Commission were very experienced in coal mining and they unanimously reported that in their opinion steps should be taken to prevent subsidence, and they went so far as to make certain practical proposals for achieving that object. One recommendation was the adoption of more scientific methods of coal mining, and they instanced hydraulic stowage.
This is not by any means an academic question. There are large numbers of working men in my constituency who have purchased their own houses during the last 10 or 20 years and have suffered very serious damage as the result of mining subsidence. Various houses in my district give the appearance of having suffered from a minor earthquake. These are not all cases that happened many years ago. As a result of what took place at Cradley Heath a few years ago a very large area was affected and extensive damage was done to property in the High Street. Eight private houses and 34 business premises were damaged, and the main street itself sank from four to six feet, causing damage to sewers and gas and water mains. As a result the local authority was compelled to spend nearly £1,000 in repairing the damage.
Two years ago the then Quarry-bank Rural District Council was so concerned with the effects of subsidence that it presented a petition to the Minister of Health calling attention to mining operations by which many cottages and other hereditaments occupied by persons of the working class were threatened with serious damage. In view of the shortage of houses, which still exists, they submitted that no district can afford to have houses damaged and rendered uninhabitable from preventable causes. They also pointed out that one of the main roads in the area was being seriously affected. That main road was seriously affected and nothing can be done, except at the expenditure of many thousands of pounds, to put it in a proper state of repair. The Amendment merely asks that reasonable precautions should be taken which the Royal Commission recommended as practicable, and that something should be done to prevent damage being caused in the future as the result of subsidence.

7.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Of course, these problems of damage by subsidence are serious. The hon. Gentleman brought a deputation of the local authorities most concerned in his area to see me, at which most of the points that we have discussed to-day were advanced. The question at issue at the moment is a small one compared with a great many that have been raised in the Debate, for the Amendment deals merely with the question whether it would or would not be desirable to put into the Clause that one of the matters about which a general direction could be given should specifically be this one. All the matters about compensation, while interesting, do not particularly arise on the decision of that point.

Colonel Wedgwood: We were told by Captain Bourne at the beginning of the Debate that both questions, so far as they were questions of instruction by the right hon. Gentleman to the Coal Commission, could be taken on one Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: My Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) wanted to know who was going to be responsible in the future. That matter is dealt with in the Second Schedule, on page 48, and the position now is that any particular land on the surface either has or has not the right of support. In the beginning it all had the right of support, but that right may have passed from it as a result of a mineral lease. On the other hand, where the right of support has not been severed the surface landlord has a right to compensation for damage that may be caused to him. The general law cannot be altered in that respect, because the Coal Commission is taking the place of mineral landlords and all existing leases are being continued. If there are claims for damage which under existing leases have to be met by the colliery company, the change in the ownership of the minerals does not affect them. The new difference, however, is that the complete right of support which exists to-day is passing under the Schedule, and it is quite clear that the right to withdraw support should be subject to the payment of compensation for damage. By and large, compensation is payable for damage to existing buildings and, after notice has been given, to new buildings, as mentioned in the Schedule. The responsi-

bility in general will continue to lie where it lies at present; for the future it is altered to that extent. It is a very complicated subject.

The question of municipal authorities has been raised. They must, surely, have known when they bought the land on which they put their municipal buildings whether it had a right of support or not. I am told that some small property owners do not quite understand what are the rights attached to their land, but I cannot believe that great municipalities can have purchased large areas without having discovered for themselves whether or not there was a right of support and whether they can get from someone damages in the case of any harm being done. We should all agree that it is a desirable thing in itself to prevent any avoidable damage, whether from subsidence or anything else, but as to whether it is a good thing that this should be specified as one of the matters about which direction should be given, I part company with hon. Members opposite. I think not. I think it is much better to leave the Subsection as it is, because, by and large, these are matters which will arise for discussion later. This is not part of the responsibility that is passed on to a lessee in granting a lease. Other problems obviously arise when new leases are granted. To put in a general direction of this kind is not desirable, nor do I think it would be particularly effective, because the great bulk of the coal of the country is at present leased. A general direction of this type would not interfere with rights, with regard to compensation or otherwise, which exist in a present lease. So that while the discussion has raised many topics, to which we shall come again on Clause 21 and on the Schedule, on the smaller point as to whether this should be a matter for direction or not, I advise the Committee to leave the Clause as it is.

7.14 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not dealt with the argument, nor has he dealt with the question before the Committee. I do not understand in the least from the speech which he has made whether he thinks, as the Clause stands, that the Board of Trade have or have not power to give


an instruction. That is all that is asked for by the addition of these words. Obviously one cannot compel them to give a direction. That is not suggested. What is suggested is that it should be made absolutely clear that the words used:
in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal,
should also include the question of dealing with subsidence. I understand that as the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads these words they clearly and definitely include the power to give directions in the national interest as to how subsidence shall be dealt with both from the point of view of damage and of prevention.

Captain Crookshank: I should have thought that, if the Board wanted to give a direction on this or any other matter which appeared to them to be sufficiently in the national interest, they could, but there is always difficulty about specifying what is in the general national interest.

Sir S. Cripps: I was waiting for that argument, because in this case, unfortunately, it does not apply, as they are already specified. Once you have overstepped the mark of leaving the national interest quite at large, and have started that kind of thing, the very argument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to apply to me applies to him. He was going to say that if you specify certain things others will say that other things are omitted. That is the usual argument of the draftsmen. You have specified all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal. Is it said that it does not cover subsidence? If his argument is that by putting in words covering in specific terms what is generally of national interest, then clearly the more specific matters you put in the less will be the danger. Therefore, you should add to this rather than make it look as if you were limiting it to matters affecting safety in the working of coal, which would not cover subsidence and is not a matter of mineral development under the surface. You should also include words here to show quite clearly that the matters of national interest are not merely matters affecting coal mines but matters of national interest affecting £he surface as well.
It is vital that these words should not be cut down to be read as only referring to the interest in the coal measures. They should also refer to the interest in the surface which will not belong to the Commission. Therefore, it is doubly important, on the very argument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to offer for the non-inclusion of these words, that these words should be included. He will appreciate the point which I am making, and which, I think, is quite a good point of interpretation. If he is suggesting that there is a danger of the limitation of the national interest by specifying in very particular language, there is a greater danger from the Clause as it stands, because the only thing specified has to do with coal measures and not with the surface. It might well be said that the words, "the national interest" shall be interpreted as dealing with coal matters. If you are intending that these words should cover the surface, which is not in the control of the Commission, and which it is not purchasing or acquiring, it is absolutely necessary to have some words to show that the national interest includes not only the coal measures part of the national interest but also the surface part of the national interest.
If it is the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman, as we now gather it is, that the Board of Trade should have power on national matters, where there is a policy to be laid down, to give direction to the Commission to deal with matters of subsidence, then, I suggest that these words, or some other words, ought to be included here to show that these directions can cover surface as well as underground works. It is not necessary for me to waste time in the least by elaborating all the points that have been made, because I understand that it is admitted that there must be the power in the Board of Trade to give instructions on all questions of policies as regards subsidence, and with that we are content. But we want it to be made clear beyond any doubt in these words. We do not want it to be argued hereafter that, because of the form of these words, matters on the surface cannot be dealt with. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the undertaking that something will be done to put in words so that they clearly and undoubtedly cover that point, we shall be content as far as this matter is concerned.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) when he says that it is admitted that we have in any way changed our policy. It has always been our view that subsidence is one of the matters upon which the Board of Trade might give a general instruction, but whether such a general instruction could be given, or whether, if given, it would be effective, is a difficult matter, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is not now dealing. Certainly, it is our belief that Sub-section (2) gives that power. I quite appreciate the point which he has raised, that we have already, to some extent, derogated the general power, but I certainly do not believe that that derogation has excluded the power of dealing with subsidence from the general powers of the Board of Trade. I suggest that, as you add to the catalogue and increase the derogation, it makes it more difficult to say to us that, if that is not specifically included, it is not within their power.
I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why we included this one special case, and why I do not think that it will be held to be a derogation of the general powers. In Sub-section (1) the Commission is charged with general duties as to the land, and quite clearly the landlord is and always has been concerned with the question of subsidence. It is not so clear that he is concerned with the safety of the mines after he has leased the coal. We thought that unless we specifically put that in there might, in view of the ordinary business of the landlord, be very considerable doubt whether instructions with regard to that would come within these powers. That is the reason for its inclusion. There can be no doubt that this is within those powers, and if it is within those powers, I think that specifically to include it is a danger in other directions in which we want, possibly, power to give these instructions. I am perfectly prepared to say that, although I have given my opinion that it is within our power as the Clause now stands to give such directions, if we thought fit to do so, I will certainly, between now and another stage, confirm that, and, if I am mistaken and the effect of this drafting is to take that power out of our hands, I shall be prepared to see that our intention is carried out.

Sir S. Cripps: I think that my hon. Friends will agree that, if the right hon. Gentleman will have this matter looked into, and, if he finds that there is any doubt as to whether this includes that power, will put down an Amendment to secure it, we shall be content.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. James Brown: I would be quite content to accept the reply which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have sat here most of the afternoon and I have not heard Scotland mentioned, and it is only because I want to include Scotland in this outcry against what is being done by the colliery owners, that I intervene in this Debate. Although Scotland has not been mentioned, it probably suffers more than any of the other districts of which we have been talking. If you go into any part of the low-lying belt, beginning at the County of Fife and West Lothian, and go down to the coalfields along the Valley of the Clyde, and into the county in which I live and which I represent, you will discover the most unsightly things that can desecrate any landscape. We are talking chiefly of subsidence, but if we could prevent subsidence we should prevent those unsightly heaps which meet the eye everywhere. There is nothing insoluble about them. It would cost money, but I do not think that in the end it would require much more money than is being spent to-day. When I worked in the coal mine there was a system of the storage of stock. Coal in those days was not extracted as quickly as it is now under modernised methods, but when it was stored there was practically no sign of any subsidence, because the surface had been kept intact. I trust that some attention of that kind may be given to the matter.
Why should we have to meet with these unsightly heaps in our beautiful districts? Why should we have the terrible smells from these heaps because combustion takes place? I dare say that people in other districts have the same sort of thing with which to contend. It is true that when combustion sets in, these heaps are beautiful to look at on a winter's night. I suppose htat Dante was looking at something like that when he was considering his Inferno. But if on these occasions they are beautiful to look at, they are very offensive to smell. Although I live a considerable distance from a large rubbish


heap, I have had to stop up the keyhole because I could not get to sleep owing to the penetrating nature of these smells. I think that enough has been said at least to impress the Government with the fact that we are very much in earnest upon this subject. Subsidence is a very dangerous thing, and I am amazed to hear Ministers on the benches opposite say that these things have already been provided for. We are not allowed to discuss the question of compensation, but I have yet to learn of any district where compensation has ever been provided. Where the land has been bought or compulsorily sold the mineral rights have been protected. There are so many anomalies in this matter that a great deal more attention should be given to it, and an attempt should be made to keep the debris underground. It would not only protect the surface; it would protect the miners. It would be very useful in preventing a great many accidents, because the coal is now taken out so quickly that it adds to the risk of falls and to the danger of gas accumulations. Anyone who knows anything about mines knows that if you have large tracts, or the gob as it is called, filled with gas, and if any considerable fall takes place, the air is affected, and if fire damp results, it only needs a spark to cause a conflagration.
For life and limb, for the beauty of the country, and for the protection of the land from subsidence, I think more attention should be given than the Government seem to be willing to give to this very vital subject. I have pleasure in linking up Scotland with Wales and England in this matter. Scotland is a very beautiful country, and it is being wasted in many districts, in the most beautiful parts of it, so I think we should be doing a good night's work if we were, not to compel, but to impel the Government to take some measures greatly to minimise this trouble.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied us on one of the points but has left us unsatisfied on the other. My hon. Friend advanced two main contentions. One was to find out whether the language of Subsection (2) of this Clause actually did give the Board of Trade power to give directions to the Commission to have regard to subsidencies. The right hon.

Gentleman has satisfied us on that point, but in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman he left us completely unsatisfied on the second point, as to whether he thought such directions should be given. He was very guarded in his language and said that if they were satisfied that such was the case, he would do so and so. We have been trying hard to satisfy him that it is the case, that this is a matter of such importance that he ought to have made up his mind now that it is a matter upon which the Board of Trade should, at the earliest possible opportunity, give directions to the Commission, but apparently we have not satisfied him, and, therefore, we have failed of our main purpose. It is not enough that we should have it from the right hon. Gentleman that if at some future time he or his successors think this ought to be attended to, we have given him powers to do it. We want from him an assurance that, in his judgment, this is of sufficient importance to warrant that when the Bill becomes law directions of this kind will in fact be given.
I want to warn my hon. Friends that this is the very last opportunity. It is not as though these directions are to be brought before the House. They will never be tabled before the House in the form of either regulations or orders. They will come in no form at all that gives us an opportunity of amending or supplementing them. This relates to the inter-Departmental relationship between the Board of Trade and the Commissioners, so that we are here parting for the last time with the opportunity of discussing this matter in any effective form. The whole difficulty about raising the matter on the Report stage is that we are going to raise so many things on Report that no particular thing ever registers any effect.
I hope my hon. Friends will not allow this subject to leave the Committee unless we receive from the right hon. Gentleman something more satisfactory than the general statement that if subsequently he becomes satisfied, he will do so and so. Who is to satisfy him? We are the persons who ought to satisfy him; we are here for that purpose. Will it be some civil servant, some engineer, some coal-owners, or some landlords? As a matter of fact, when this leaves this Chamber and it becomes the function of the Board of Trade, there will be the usual tug-of-war between the landlord, the coalowner,


and such thought on the subject as may still be found in the Government Department, which is not very much, and experience shows that in a tug-of-war of that kind the mobilised, vested interests usually succeed in getting their own way. Here is our opportunity, and we ought to secure something more satisfactory than we have had so far.
No attempt has been made to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman concerning the difficulties, of avoiding subsidences. If this were an unimportant matter upon which no investigation had been made, I would not continue the discussion, but the country is in many parts faced with the results of this problem because of the complete social and financial irresponsibility of the coalowners. It is not as though there is no technical information available on this matter. I saw as long ago as 1927 some examples of hydraulic stowage in Silesia. Representations have been made to the coalowners in this country over and over again that some system of hydraulic stowage should be adopted here in order to prevent subsidence, and certain, technical methods have been used for many years in the gold and silver mines of South Africa, where, I believe, it is compulsory that hydraulic stowage should be resorted to. This is an important technical development which has not been taken advantage of here, because, as things are, coal-owners pay no penalties for not adopting it, being immune from the consequences of subsidence.
There are other considerations as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) pointed out one or two of them. This is not a problem which lessens with the passage of years. It increases, not only because the incidence of former coal-mining is now fructifying in subsidences, but also because of the changes in the nature of coal-mining itself. In the old days, when I worked in the pit, the coalowners had a technical interest and advantage in stowing the waste, because if they did not stow, the yield of the coal face fell. In those days, unless you packed your roof behind you, all the pressure was thrown behind and not out at all, so that, by packing the roof behind, the pressure was thrown forward, and the coal face scaled more easily and was more fertile in tonnage. At the same time you could not push the coal face forward as quickly then as now, because

if you did so, the coal face would be too fresh, and the pouring out of gas through the coal would not scale off the coal quickly enough, so that you had two considerations then that do not exist now. The situation now is different. The coal-owner needs the pressure of the roof on the coal face, because he has got his conveyors, coal cutters and hydraulic picks, and the result is that the changes in the methods of coal-mining have deprived the nation of the self-interest that the coal-owner formerly had in preventing subsidences. Therefore, this is a developing problem, becoming more and more important as a consequence of these technical changes.
I do not want to be obstructive, but we do not appear to have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter upon which the Board of Trade should at once exercise the powers which they will have under the Clause. If he tells us that they will take the first possible occasion to do so, we shall be satisfied, but it would be very foolish to part with this subject at the moment, and part with it for the last effective time, without first of ail having satisfied ourselves that we have exhausted every means at our disposal of convincing the right hon. Gentleman that there is substance in our case.

7.42 p.m.

Lord Apsley: Who is going to pay for the somewhat elaborate inquiries which will be necessitated under this scheme? At present the landowner of an agricultural estate who is also the royalty owner feels it to be both his duty and his advantage to protect his tenant, and in any new lease that may be undertaken, or in any new development, or in any abandonment of old workings, before such measures are taken it is the landowner's duty and advantage too to see that his tenant is protected from any subsidence that may result. Now, if this Bill passes, the whole situation will be altered. So far as I can gather, the landowner will have to keep in close touch with the Commissioners and ask them to inform him what new developments may be in view. Having done that, he has then to find out what possible dangers of subsidence this may cause to his property or to his tenants. Then he will have to claim on the Commissioners for protection or compensation as the case may be.
Is he going to be faced with the whole cost of this procedure, or if he relies, as


many landowners do, on a portion of the proceeds of mineral royalties for upkeep of his agricultural estate and, if the Bill passes he finds himself compelled to sell, does the former tenant, now the freeholder, or the new owner of the land, not of the whole property, and having no knowledge of mining royalties whatever, have to be burdened with the expense of making an inquiry and asking the Commissioners to protect his interest and to keep him in touch with every development in the coalfield? We should like some assurance that the Commissioners will take up this great responsibility at a minimum cost—in fact, at no cost at all—to the owners of the surface rights.

Mr. E. Smith: I have consulted my legal advisers and they recommend that, on the assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade, if we raise this matter at a later stage he will give it consideration. I should ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end, to add:
(3) For the purpose of this section the words interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry shall, without in any way affecting the generality of such words, be deemed to include the following matters:—

(a) The wage standards of the workers employed in the industry;
(b) The full utilisation of all existing social facilities and works such as transport, roads, schools, housing, places of entertainment, lighting, water supply, and other facilities and works."
This Amendment raises two very important issues which seem to be overlooked in the Bill, namely, the wages of the workers and the social conditions in the mining areas. Whatever troubles may have arisen in the industry from royalties, a great deal of trouble has arisen from the question of wages in the last 20 or 30 years, and the value of any Bill to the miners must depend largely upon the extent to which it improves or safeguards the wages of the workers. Clause 2 refers not to wages but to national interest and efficiency, and we are anxious to define those terms. We realise that the party opposite has its own definition of efficiency under private

enterprise. Any undertaking which returns a financial profit to investors is regarded as efficient, but we consider that it is possible for the industry to return financial profit without being efficient from the miners' point of view. The powers prescribed in this Clause are limited, and I ask the Secretary for Mines to realise that unless something is done to enable the Commission to deal with wages, when determining its policy as regards its future duties under the later part of this Measure, the miners will be sorely dissatisfied. The aspect of the question of wages which has caused most disturbance is that relating to the machinery of settlement.
For years we have been suffering—and I use the word "suffering" advisedly—under a system of district agreements. That system was imposed on us in 1926. Had we been strong enough then we should have resisted it, but after the prolonged stoppage our resources were so weakened that we had to give in. Like the Germans in 1918, we had peace terms imposed upon us, and those terms included district settlements of wages in place of national settlements. There will never be peace in the mining industry, nor will there be that good will which we are told is necessary, until we get back to the system of the national settlement of wages. The owners tell us that national settlement is not possible, because of the variations from district to district. I have been a miner for over 20 years, and I submit that there are as many variations in a single mine as there are between any two mines in the country. There are districts in Lancashire with as many variations as are to be found between a mine in South Wales and a mine in Scotland. The fact that there are these variations, which one admits, is no reason why we should not have national negotiations on wages.
This Bill gives us unification of royalties and national regulation of output and price. As practical miners we are unable to understand why, if national machinery is suggested for dealing with so much of the mining industry, it should not also apply to wages. I agree that the powers of the Commission are limited. They are largely concerned with granting leases, but in doing that, surely the wages question ought to be considered. It cannot be argued that any


suggestions relating to the mining industry are to be accepted regardless of the consequences to the miner. Our opposition to this Bill has not been intense. We have shown no ferocious hostility to it, because we feel that there is something in it for the miners. But we are anxious that that something should be specified, and one of the considerations which the Board of Trade should ask the Commission to take into account is the effect of any proposed change on wages. If the Bill safeguards and improves wages, well and good, but wages ought not to be disregarded as an element for consideration in deciding the policy of the Commission.
With regard to the social consequences of the policy outlined in the Bill, we know that the powers to be entrusted to this Commission will very largely influence domestic life in many areas. One of the powers entrusted indirectly to the Commission is that of closing down collieries as a result of amalgamations. That is a serious matter. I have instances in my own division of whole areas being affected in this way. I know areas in which every colliery has been stopped as a result of economic factors over which the colliery owners has had no control. Such an area is left with tremendous responsibilities, with schools and churches, and public organisations and institutions of various kinds. The Commission should be instructed by the Board of Trade to take those considerations into account when determining their policy. I shall probably be asked whether it is likely that the Commission would disregard such important considerations. If they are there to safeguard the financial interests of the investors, I say it is possible that they may overlook those considerations. That is why I ask the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether it is intended that the Commission shall pay regard both to miners' wages and to the social consequences of that policy. That, in brief, is the case for the Amendment, and as I am anxious to facilitate and not to obstruct the passage of the Bill, I do not put it at any greater length.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I support this Amendment because I am anxious to make some improvement in what I regard as a thoroughly bad Bill. I want this Commission to be a thing of substance and of real use. As it is described in Clause 2, it appears to be more in the nature of a

sham. This Bill, apart from the setting up of the Commission, seems to be concerned mainly with the royalty owners on one hand and the coalowners on the other. We note with concern that in this very controversial Bill there is not a word which offers any relief to the workmen in the industry, and we propose the insertion of this new Sub-section, because we feel that the Commission ought to have the power to deal with wages and also with the social life of the people in the mining areas. We shall probably be told that matters referred to in the proposed new Sub-section such as wages, would be more appropriately dealt with by the Miners' Federation and the mine-owners of the country. I appreciate the fact that the Miners' Federation is a competent authority to deal with the question of wages but from experience some of us. feel that the powers of the Miners Federation and the Coalowners Association are restricted in relation to certain of these questions.
We are disturbed with regard to the question of national negotiations in this industry. I am sure we all agree that if inquiry were the only thing needed to bring peace to an industry, there is no industry in this country which has had so many inquiries brought to bear upon it as coal-mining. We hope that the insertion of this new Sub-section will be accepted. It will give some little hope to the miners of this country that the claims of the workpeople are being considered as well as those of other sections. I hope the Minister will not content himself with telling us that the matter of wages is one for the Miners' Federation and the Coalowners Association, or that the question of social conditions is one for the local authorities. I hope he will show the country that he is not afraid either of one organisation or the other, and that he is prepared to accept this Amendment.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I join with my hon. Friend in supporting this Amendment. Since I came to this House I have heard no question more frequently discussed than that of the conditions in the mining industry, and I believe that industry takes first place among the industries of the country, for fights and quarrels over various matters. Now that we have begun to reorganise it, now that


we are giving this Commission considerable powers, I hope an Amendment on these lines will be favourably considered. The Secretary for Mines knows as well as any miners' representative, that the men are not satisfied with the present wage agreements. They expect that under this new system wages will be put on a satisfactory basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said, the terms accepted in 1926 were dictated terms, and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain will not go on for ever under those dictated terms.
The point upon which we most insist is that we should have a national wages agreement. The industry is now being organised on a national basis as regards royalties, and instructions should be given to the Commission to have miners' wages as far as possible settled on a national basis. As my hon. Friend said, there is no justification for the argument that the differences between one district and another are such as to make district agreements necessary. He was right in saying that in any one mine there can be found as many variations as are to be found between one district and another in the Federation area. In every district there are differences, and in every pit there are differences. A national wages agreement and national wages regulation would be more satisfactory than the present system.
In addition to the question of wages there is the question of social conditions in the mining areas, and I hope that the Commission will also exercise its powers to deal with those social conditions. The conditions that exist in the mining areas are none too attractive, and the Commission ought to devote a considerable part of its time to making the conditions tolerable. The matters mentioned in the Amendment are matters to which the miners attach the greatest importance, and for these reasons I have pleasure in supporting it. We have no desire to delay the passing of the Bill, but we want to see the Commission doing something effective for the miners. Last Monday I said that so far as the miners are concerned there is nothing in the Bill for them as it stands; but if the Amendment were accepted and the Commission could deal with miners' wages and the conditions that surround the life of the miners,

there would be something in the Bill that would be of real advantage to them. If the Bill is to be merely the transference of mining royalties from private owners to national ownership, then the miners can make up their minds that they will not be one penny piece better off than they are under the present system. If, however, the Amendment can be inserted, the miners of Great Britain will have something in the Bill to be thankful for.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Short: I have read the Bill very carefully, and, as far as I can see, the word "miner" does not appear in it. One would imagine that we could have a coal industry which could be managed and developed without any regard to the conditions of labour and of the miners themselves. I have never been able to understand the stubbornness and stupidity of Ministers. Up to now the Opposition has derived very little satisfaction in these Debates. We have been put off with the assurance that some powers exist in this Clause that will enable the President of the Board of Trade to do this, that or the other; but I am certain that the Secretary for Mines will not be able to say that on this occasion. Sub-section (1) makes provision so that the Commission shall be able to take steps for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry. If we are to have efficiency and better organisation, and we are to promote the interests of the coal-mining industry, we must first have a contented mining population. We must have a well-paid mining community, whose conditions are above suspicion. We must seek to meet the legitimate demands of those who are following the occupation of mining.
More than one-third of my electors are miners, but I look upon this matter not only from the miners' point of view, but the point of view of the consumers. Nearly every dispute of a serious widespread national character affects wages, and grave domestic problems arise. When you have a great mining stoppage over wages, industries upon which millions of people depend are either stopped or disorganised, and there is distress, poverty and misery. In this Sub-section we make a very reasonable and sensible proposal, too modest a proposal when we consider the provisions of the Bill in their entirety. We propose that the Commission shall have power


to ensure that there shall be national negotiations for and national organisation of wage standards.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what this Amendment does not do.

Mr. Shorts: The Amendment says:
For the purpose of this section the words interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry shall, without in any way affecting the generality of such words, be deemed to include the following matters:—

(a) The wage standards of the workers employed in the industry;
(b) The full utilisation of all existing social facilities and works such as transport, roads, schools, housing, places of entertainment, lighting, water supply, and other facilities and works."
I thought that I was addressing myself to the point at issue when I was seeking to show that there should be adequate wage standards on a national basis.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member has overlooked the first part of Sub-section (1) which says that the Commission
shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises… by granting coal-mining leases.
All that the Amendment can possibly mean is that in granting leases the Commission shall pay attention to the provisions of the Sub-section, and see that the leases are granted in respect of such places as will enable adequate wage standards to be maintained, and where possibly the existing facilities can be used. This Amendment could give them no power that they have not under Sub-section (1).

Mr. Short: I accept your Ruling, but I do not think it makes much material difference to what I had in mind. I may have strayed a little wide in following my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, by dealing with unification of the basis of negotiations. I now see that I have to address myself to the wage standards of the workers employed in the industry. The industry is not confined to districts. It is a widespread national industry, and we do not know where the Commission will give leases. We do not know where they will enter into negotiations. Therefore, we desire to ensure that they shall have regard to the wage standards of the workers employed in the industry, and that they shall ensure that the wage

standards shall be of a national character and not based upon some district method of calculation. That was the point that I was making, and I am content to make it in that sense. The Amendment can be linked up with the words
including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
If we have not regard to the wage standards of the miners, there will be discontent and there may be disregard of the necessary precautions in the working of the coal, and that may lead to unsafe working. In this respect the Amendment provides us with a reasonable proposition, calculated to ensure that the Commission shall have power to see that the wage standards of the miners are maintained. They will be giving leases in various parts of the country, and we desire that they shall see that those wage standards are of a national character. I am hopeful that they will negotiate on that basis.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I am sorry, Captain Bourne, that you have given a Ruling in a narrower sense than we had hoped would have been justified by the Amendment. We had hoped that we should have been able to discuss the questions which underlie all our complaints, namely, the wage standards of the miners and their social facilities. The Amendment recognises that there is need for the Commission to give attention to wage standards in the industry. The wages of the miners prove that there is urgent need for the Commission to give attention to them.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what this Amendment does not do. I want the hon. Member to understand that I am not ruling that matter out. I am only pointing out that this particular Amendment does not do it.

8.13 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: As this is a comparatively narrow Amendment may I say that it raises two issues? The first issue is the wage standards and the other is what we may call the social aspect. On the wages question hon. Members opposite are not agreed. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, speaking of the Bill as a whole, that there was something in it for the miners. The proposal of the Amendment is that in the granting of leases a particular consideration in promoting the interests, efficiency


and better organisation of the mining industry should be attention to the wage standards of the workers employed. If it was a question of a general statement to the Commission that the wage standards of the workers are a very important part of the general efficiency of the industry, we should all be agreed, but here it is a question whether these matters should be any part of the Commission's job. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have overlooked the fact that the Amendment which was moved on Monday was not carried. If the Commission had been made responsible for running the industry either in toto or in part that might have been another matter, but it is only concerned as the ground landlord. Is the ground landlord to concern himself directly with the wages paid by somebody else to whom he has let his property? As the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) pointed out, the Miners' Federation are normally the channel with whom wage matters are discussed. Is that the function of the Commission as ground landlord? The royalty owners have never entered into any discussion about wages; therefore, why should we make the new Commission, which is to be a substitute for the old royalty owners, have anything to do with the matter?

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Commission is to grant leases, and colliery owners in working the collieries have to adhere to a quota and cannot sell at a price less than the price fixed. Is there anything wrong in principle in the Commission, when it grants a mining lease, saying that they must observe the wage standards?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think it is a matter for the royalty owners, and particularly as there are recognised channels to discuss wage problems. Hon. Members, of course, must bear in mind the general effect of the proposals in Clause I and the reductions which may become available in due course. If you reduce payments on royalties, you reduce the costs of production which have to be taken into account in any ascertainment for wages. While the Commission is not to interfere or to have anything to do with the wage aspect of this matter, yet by carrying out the policy it is required to carry out under the Bill it will have some effect on wages. The question of

social conditions was discussed last Monday. Surely it would be almost meaningless to request the Commission to take account of a whole variety of considerations such as roads and schools, social facilities and places of entertainment which are no part of the mining industry and which have nothing to do with the mining industry as such. It would be meaningless to give the Commission a direction to consider all these points without giving them also some power in regard to them.
Any one of these matters is not a question for the ground landlord of coal at all, and the general condition of any district is much more an important matter of national interest than it is a matter of interest to the mining industry. In so far as they are matters of national interest, that is just the sort of topic which the Board of Trade could tell the Commission to consider. The general position as outlined in Clause 21, so far as it reduces the general costs of production, does have an effect on the wage position. The question as to how wage negotiations should be carried on is not a question for the ground landlord, but a question for the representatives of the workmen and their employers. I recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Government pretend that in the Bill there is something which improves the position of the mine workers of the country, it would be far better to have it explicitly stated in the Bill. It is all very well for the Secretary for Mines to say that there is the provision in Clause 21, and that a reduction in royalty rents may affect the condition of the miner. It may well be that because of circumstances which may arise and which I will not anticipate, the Commission may find themselves in the position of having to raise royalty rents. In that case the miners are not going to gain any increase in wages. I beg the hon. and gallant Member to understand that this Amendment has nothing to do with the Amendment we discussed on Monday, which provided for the Commission undertaking certain functions in connection with the management of mines other than those provided for in the Bill. It is true that the question of the social and wage standards of the miners was


raised in that Debate, but it was not the same Amendment as now appears.

Captain Crookshank: I never said that. I said only that in the course of the Debate the matter was touched upon many times.

Mr. Shinwell: That is true, but we are discussing something quite different now. Under the Act of 1930 a National Wages Board was set up. That board has never functioned, and it has gone out of existence. It is not provided for in the Bill, and in fact there is no national wages negotiating machinery for the mining industry. Surely my hon. Friends cannot be blamed for raising this issue in the absence of adequate machinery which will safeguard the wage standards of the miners. It is perfectly true that in spite of the undoubted improvement in the coal trade, in spite of the steep rise in prices—there is no doubt about that—in spite of almost superhuman efforts on the part of the mineworkers, and the force of public opinion, which led to a modest increase in wages, the average wages of miners are no more than 50s. a week. Surely, that is a very low standard.
We are not discussing a Bill which primarily concerns the social conditions and wage standards of mineworkers, but a Bill which is intended, if we are to believe the Government spokesmen, to promote efficiency and better organisation in the mining industry. I maintain that unless, by some method, either by this form of words or by some appropriate form which the Minister can advance, we do something to meet the claims of the mine-workers, all this talk about promoting efficiency in the mining industry is simply make-believe. I do not care a tinker's curse about this Bill—I say that quite deliberately—unless the miners benefit from it. I yield to none in my desire for efficiency in the mining industry, but of what use is it talking about efficiency unless the men gain in wages and conditions? My hon. Friends and I do not confine ourselves to that, for we desire to see the consumers obtain coal at reasonable prices and want to see the coal resources of the country properly developed; but we are primarily concerned about the producers of coal, without whom the industry could not exist. Those are indisputable facts.
In resisting the Amendment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines asked how the ground landlord can be asked to lay down conditions of this sort, and he argued that the ground landlord remains. That is not our conception of the position. If the ground landlord of the past is to be the ground landlord of the future, in essence, this Bill is worth nothing. We had understood that in place of the private ground landlord, there was to be unification of royalties. It is true that existing leases will continue and new leases will be entered into, but over and above those existing and future contracts, there will be a unified authority exercising supervision. Therefore, surely there is some difference between the State ground landlord, charged with the functions explicit in the Bill, and the private ground landlord; and that being the case, we are not speaking in terms of the past or even of the present, but in terms of something that is vastly different and vastly improved. Otherwise, what is the good of the Bill? The hon. and gallant Gentleman might as well retire from the Front Bench, and throw the towel into the ring.
There is another consideration that I wish to advance, a consideration which I believe to be of substantial importance. Will it be denied that there are so safeguards for the miners in this Bill? I am not now discussing the question of amalgamations, which, of course, is one of the functions of the Commission. Where are the safeguards? There is none. In the absence of safeguards, implicit or explicit in the Bill, surely my hon. Friends cannot be blamed for advancing the considerations which they have put before the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Batey: We have not been allowed to advance them very far.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is right. We cannot advance them as we would like to do owing to the limiting character of the Amendment. Let me consider what exactly the Amendment aims at. It does not provide for a raising of the wage standards and social conditions of all mineworkers. Let that be admitted. It provides only for giving consideration to the wage standards and social conditions of mineworkers when new leases are entered into. Therefore, it is of a limiting character, and does not go as far as


we would desire. But surely it would be a very desirable thing, when the new leases are entered into, that some moral influence should operate in relation to wage standards and social conditions which would have some effect on the industry at large. It is at that time that the new ground landlord is, so to speak, entering into possession, and there could not be a more opportune occasion.
There are two further considerations that I wish to put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In the first place, we are here engaged in unifying the industry. That is the intention. Can we not do something in the way of partially unifying the method of dealing with wages and social conditions? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the latter part of the Amendment seems to be quite irrelevant. He argued that these questions of the utilisation of existing social facilities—transport, roads, schools and so on—have nothing to do with the mining industry. What an absurd conception of the mining industry the hon. and gallant Gentleman has. Everything affecting the mine-workers, and indeed everything affecting their wives and families, has a great deal to do with the mining industry. Unless there is an efficient community of mine-workers, there will be no mining industry. I am surprised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He ought to know much more about this matter than he appears to know. I am surprised that he should have made that statement, in view of the fact that the mining industry has, through legislation, made itself responsible for the mineworkers' welfare. Through the Miners' Welfare Scheme and the Miners' Welfare Committee, the welfare of the mineworkers is definitely associated with the mining industry.
My second and final submission to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the mineworkers will have no faith in the Coal Commission unless some provision such as is made in the Amendment is contained in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may find fault with the phrasing of the Amendment and with its limiting character—indeed, I find a little fault with it on that heading, and I think it should have been more wholehearted and comprehensive, affecting every section of the industry—but if he does find fault with it on those grounds, let him at a later stage find appropriate words,

and we shall do all we can to facilitate their entry into the Bill.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gathered that the Minister said it would not be permissible for the Commission to lay down in the leases which they will give, conditions about wages. A lease is a contract, and surely it should be permissible for the Commission to lay down what would be, in effect, a fair wages clause as a definite term of the lease and say that if the coal is to be worked, one of the conditions of working it is that the employer will observe the wage standard in the industry. There have been times in the mining industry when it has not been possible to get every employer to observe the wage standard. If I understand the Minister aright, it will not be within the rights of this Commission to insert a clause of that kind in their leases. Surely such a Commission, holding the coal for the nation, would only be doing its duty in making it a condition of a lease that any employer who worked the coal should observe the wage standards in the industry. The Government do it when they give a contract to a firm, for they lay it down that the labour employed must be paid the wage standard of the industry. It is a reasonable request that the State as a landlord should at least be equal to the best private landlords and adopt the best practices.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give a legal interpretation, which I am not able to do off-hand. Whether the Commission has such a right or not, there is a far greater authority which sees that the proper wages art-paid in the industry. I should be very surprised, if the Miners' Federation got to hear of improper standards of wages anywhere, that they let it go. That would be different from any experience I have had of them.

Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary for Mines has not replied to my question. Do I understand that it would be illegal for the Commission to lay down a condition that whoever works the coal under a lease granted by the Commission must observe the standards obtaining in the industry?

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 186.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Bernays, R. H.
Bull, B. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Burghley, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Assheton, R.
Blaker, Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bossom, A. C.
Butcher, H. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Sir W.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cary, R. A.




Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Channon, H.
Holdsworth, H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hopkinson, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk N.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Keeling, E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salt, E. W


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crooke, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandys, E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. O.
Lees-Jones J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leigh, Sir J.
Scott, Lord William


Culverwell, C. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, H. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


De Chair, S. S.
Levy, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


De la Bère, R.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Denman, Hen. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Denville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Doland, G. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerset, T.


Donner, P. W.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Spens, W. P.


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Maitland, A.
Storey, S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tate, Mavis C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (Padd., S.)


Everard, W. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Touche, G. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Furness, S. N.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Turton, R. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L, (Hull)


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Granville, E. L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, O.
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Peat, C. U.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hannah, I. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Petherick, M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Harbord, A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harlington, Marquess of
Pilkington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Porritt, R. W.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hepburn, p. G. T. Buchan-
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hepworth, J.
Ramsbotham, H.



Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Ammon, C. G.
Barr, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Batey, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Banfield, J. W.
Bevan, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Barnes, A. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)







Buchanan, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Burke, W. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Cape, T.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Cassells, T.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Chater, D.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Clynes, RI. Hon. J. R.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davies, S. O. (M"rthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, RI. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mander, G. le M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gibbins, J.
Marshall, F.
Weir, L. MacNeill


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
White, H. Graham


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, J. (LIanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[8.39 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Gibbins, J.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hall, G. H. (Abordare)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland N.)


Benson, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, A.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cassells, T.
Hollins, A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL,


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—:


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Albery, Sir Irving
Culverwell, C. T.
Hepworth, J.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Higgs, W. F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
De la Bère, R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holdsworth, H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Doland, G. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Apsley, Lord
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hopkinson, A.


Assheton, R.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, J. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Ellis, Sir G.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Emery, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kimball, L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Latham, Sir P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Everard, W. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Blair, Sir R.
Findlay, Sir E.
Levy, T.


Blaker, Sir R.
Fleming, E. L.
Lewis, O.


Bracken, B.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Liddall, W. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lipson, D. L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Loftus, P. C.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Maitland, A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Harvey, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Markham, S. F.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Cross, R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morgan, R. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)







Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Rowlands, G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Munro, P.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Marquess of


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Touche, G. C.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Savery, Sir Servington
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander B. L.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Scott, Lord William
Turton, R. H.


Peake, O.
Selley, H. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Peat, C. U.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Warrender, Sir V.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Procter, Major H. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wells, S. R.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ramsbotham, H.
Spens. W. P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wise, A. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Storey, S.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)
Wragg, H.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sutcliffe, H.



Ropner, Colonel L.
Tate, Mavis C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I have sat here ever since the start of the Debate to-day with two speeches which I had prepared in support of Amendments, but I was not allowed to deliver them and so I wish to take the opportunity of speaking now. I wish first to draw attention to Sub-section (2). It seems that it is the object of the Board of Trade to keep a hand upon the Commission and not allow it to go too far. The Board of Trade are taking power to give directions to the Commission. The Secretary for Mines was complaining on Monday night that I then wanted to give more power to the Commission, in spite of having said on Second Reading that I thought they had too much power. It is clear that the Government are not satisfied with the Commission, because here they are taking power to keep a hand upon it, so that it should not go too far or too fast. It is the Board of Trade who are to give those directions, but what we have been aiming at for many years is that the Mines Department should be a power in itself. Instead of the Board of Trade it should be the ministry of mines which should give the directions. We know that it is a Department of the Board of Trade, but we have never been satisfied with that. We believe that it ought to be a Department on its own.
Agriculture has a Minister in the Cabinet, and who is going to argue that agriculture is more important than mining? There are as many men engaged

in mining as in agriculture, and their interests are as great. I believe the time is coming when the ministry of mines will be made a department by itself; some of us thought it would have happened long ago. If we pass this Bill we continue the ministry of mines in the position to which it has been relegated of being a sub-department of the Board of Trade. The ministry of mines is far better able to advise the Commission than is the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade is, I know, connected with a mining family, but I am sure he will admit that he has not a deep knowledge of mining. The ministry of mines is advised by what I regard as the best advisers it can have. In the matter of safety in mines it is advised by the mines inspectors, and those inspectors would be able to guide it in giving directons to the Commission as regards safety.
Now I have a word or two to say about Sub-section (1). If there was one thing more than another which we wanted to discuss it was the wages and social conditions of the miners, but we were not allowed to do so. We believed that we had put down Amendments which covered both those questions, but the first Amendment, in regard to national machinery, was ruled out of order and on the last Amendment we were not allowed to raise the wages question as we should have liked to raise it. Under this Sub-section the Commission have the power to grant coal-mining leases:
As they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.


I submit that we cannot have an efficient industry and better organisation unless there is machinery for the national regulation of wages. One of my colleagues on the Front Bench said a few moment ago that the average wage of miners in Great Britain was £2 10s. a week. The Secretary for Mines, in an answer to the question to-day stated that in 1936 the average wage of miners in Great Britain was £2 10s. 6d. and in Durham £2 4s. 8d. I ask hon. Members opposite to say whether, if they were representing miners, they would be satisfied with the men being paid £2 4s. 8d. a week at a time like this? It must be remembered that in 1932 the average wage in Durham was £1 17s. 11d. per week, against £4 2s. 3d. in 1920. In view of those figures I submit that we are entitled to take advantage of every opportunity in any Bill to insist on the creation of machinery by which the wages can be improved.
The social facilities referred to in the last Amendment include housing. If hon. Members will read the report of the Samuel Commission they will find that the bulk of this Bill has been simply lifted out of it, both in regard to nationalisation of royalties and amalgamations. The Samuel Report seemed to look forward to the time when a Coal Commission would be appointed and would deal with royalties. On page 83 of their report the Samuel Commission said:
In granting leases for any new collieries it should be one of the principal duties of the Coal Commissioners to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the housing of the workers, and for pit-head baths.
No provision is made in the Bill for housing. One dare not start to deal with housing in many of our colliery villages, as we know them. One of the matters about which the Board of Trade should give directions to the Commission is housing, and it should not be impossible at the same time for them to deal with pit-head baths. By means of the Welfare Fund we are able to erect pit-head baths, but when the Government are negotiating a Bill dealing with royalties and are proposing to pay so much money to the royalty owners, they should be prepared to carry out this recommendation of the Samuel Commission and to insist that there should be a pit-head bath at every colliery so that men might be able to get their baths upon coming out of the pit.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to Subsection (2), and to the words:
including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.
I know that the President of the Board of Trade has given some assurance that if he is satisfied he will bring forward an Amendment to meet the objection which we raised previously on this Part of the Bill, but I would like an assurance from him in relation to a doubt that is in my own mind. I was particularly struck with what he said about the methods of mining showing a difference between last century and this century. I remember that on the Second Reading Debate he spoke in more or less the same strain about the dark days in the beginning of the industry. There is a tremendous difference now in the working of coal mines. They are more up-to-date. Competition has made things keener. Our colliery managers are highly scientific men. Improvements in ventilation have taken place, but there is still one overriding factor dominating the coalowners in the conduct of their industry, and that is profit. We have never got away from that. It is there, and is the overriding interest in the working of coal mines.
In looking at the words "safety of the working of coal" I am inclined to have regard also to the livelihood and the safety of the miner. They can be ensured in two ways. There is the rather profligate wastage of the royalty, and, secondly, the working of the colliery to the best advantage in a safe way in respect of accidents. Let me illustrate what I mean about profligate wastage of the royalty. I have in mind a colliery in which the seam was on an incline. The company that had the place made enormous profits out of it, I understand, and 100 per cent. dividend was practically nothing to them. They worked the high side of the seam. They concentrated upon it, and when dividends were at the very highest they sold out. The company that bought the royalty found that there was only the lower side working. Had the Commission been in operation then and had the powers, about which I require an assurance, been in operation, that royalty would have been worked in such a way that the fat would


have fried the lean. The colliery would have been working now, instead of the lower part of the workings being pretty well waterlogged with such a heavy accumulation of water as ultimately meant the abandonment of the pit. A livelihood would have been provided for 500 or 600 men.
As workmen at the colliery, shall we have the right under the Bill to representation, either from the colliery or through our trade union, to the Commission, in order to draw attention to the facts whenever we believe that the royalty is not being worked to the best advantage of the nation? That is a matter of primary importance in the working of our coal. It should not necessarily be worked with a profit motive, but in accordance with the greatest benefit to the nation. At the present time we can, and we do, make representations to an inspector of mines if there is some condition in the mine about which we are not satisfied and when we want an inspector to visit the mine. Although we have that power, we never raise any grievance or make a request that inspectors shall visit a colliery in order to safeguard the interests and safety of the men unless we have good grounds and substantial reasons for doing so. Cannot the Secretary for Mines make it possible that when an inspector has visited a mine the report of the visit—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now raising a matter which really ought to come on the Mines Vote.

Mr. Taylor: I have a few words to say of interest to trade union officials. I want to ask whether it will be possible under this Clause for men to make representations direct to the Commission or through their trade union in order to draw the attention of the Commission whenever they believe that the royalty is not being worked to the best advantage? The livelihood of the miners depends upon that, although it might not occur so often, just as much as it depends upon the method of working and the provisions for the safety of the mine. Those are two factors by which the livelihood and well-being of the miner can be very materially affected, and I merely rose to ask whether they are provided for in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: Even at this late stage I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the attitude of the Government with regard to this Clause, and particularly with regard to Sub-section (2). I should have been content to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite which was directed to the deletion of Sub-section (2). When a public body like the Coal Commission envisaged in this Bill is being established, I doubt whether it is advisable to give to any Government Department the power to address to a body of that character what are called general directions. The meaning of general directions may be the subject of an infinite number of interpretations. Apart from that, I do not know what would happen if, despite the provision that, general directions having been given, the Commission shall give effect to them, the Coal Commission, in the proper exercise of the duties imposed upon it, made a decision which might appear to be contrary to the general directions addressed to it by the Board of Trade. Who is going to prevail in such an event? Who is going to decide who shall prevail? Is it to be the Coal Commission, in their quite honest, faithful, conscientious interpretation of the Act; or is it to be the Board of Trade, which may take a different view of a particular decision of the Coal Commission?

Mr. Stanley: Surely the answer is that their action could be taken into court. If they acted contrary to the directions of the Board of Trade, their action would be ultra vires.

Mr. Evans: That is what I wanted to know. But that is a particularly expensive procedure, which may add to the practical difficulties of putting the Measure into operation. Apart from that, I must say I felt that the President of the Board of Trade was able to reassure us to some extent when he said that the object of the Sub-section was to enable the House of Commons to exercise its control over the Government of the day, because whoever might be the President of the Board of Trade would accept responsibility for the directions issued to the Coal Commission, and, therefore, could be challenged in the House. That reassured me to some extent, until I looked again at the Sub-section and found it difficult to understand why, if that were


its sole object, it was necessary to add the words:
including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I explained exactly why we put those words in.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that that was not a sufficient answer, because, as far as the safety of the working of coal is concerned, the House of Commons already has powers. It can challenge the Secretary for Mines in regard to matters affecting safety of working in the pits. The point is a larger one. Why particularise at all? The trouble in which the Government now are arises out of their own Clause. If they had left the words in the general sense that there were to be general directions, they might have obviated the difficulty which some of us felt, but, once they start particularising, they are placed in a difficulty in answering the suggestions made by hon. Members above the Gangway with regard to some other matters which ought to be introduced. The President has had to agree already that the words used in Sub-section (2) are not sufficient to cover the point which he said he wished to cover, in regard—

Mr. Stanley: I said I was advised, and believed, that they did cover it, but, in view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's doubts, I will certainly look at it between now and Report.

Mr. Evans: It may have been the Secretary for Mines who said it, but I think it was agreed on behalf of the Government that the words in particular:
all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal 
did not meet the whole point that was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and that it might be necessary to reconsider those words.

Mr. Stanley: I have already told the hon. and learned Gentleman that I made no such admission. I said I believed that they did, but I will certainly confirm that between now and the next sitting.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) was dealing, I understood, with the question of safety of working in the pit—

Mr. Stanley: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with the question of subsidence.

Mr. Evans: No. With regard to the question of subsidence, these words are sufficient to give the Board of Trade power to give general directions to the Coal Commission. I only point out these things to show that the Sub-section is badly drafted—I put it no higher; and I would beg the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider it and see whether it can be put in a more artistic and practical manner.

9.14 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to say only a word on this Clause. We do not propose to divide against it, but I should like, before we pass from it, to make one or two observations with regard to it. On the first Amendment to the Clause, several Members on this side pointed out that obviously this Bill and this Clause were designed in the interests of the mineowners—those who were going to work the coal—and did not take into account the interests of the miners. It is clear from the refusal of Amendments, especially the last one, that that is the attitude taken up by the Government on this Clause. The Secreary for Mines, on an earlier Amendment, repeated the phrase, which he used on the Second Reading, that the Bill was for the general reorganisation of the industry, and he told us that regard would be had to the interests of the mining industry. When we tried to expand the words at the end of Sub-section (1):
interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry,
to include the interests of the miners so far as wages are concerned, or the interests of the mining communities so far as social services are concerned, we were told that these had nothing to do with mining. That illustrates the completely different approach between ourselves and the Government to this problem. We regard the most vital and important interests, so far as the mining industry is concerned, as being the interest of the coal miner first, and, next, the interest


of the communities in the pithead towns and the social services connected with them. We are told that neither of these two matters can be considered at all by the Commissioners. In other words they are not considered to affect
the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
The direction that the Board of Trade may give to the Commission under Clause 2 is limited to
general direction as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their function under this part of the Act.
Therefore, if one cannot expand the meaning of the words in Sub-section (1)—
the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry "—
to include the welfare of the coal-mining community, then, although it may be in the national interest that instructions should be given by the Board of Trade on those matters, they cannot do it because the Government have refused to give to the words that expanded meaning which we would like to have inserted. In the result, this Clause, as it stands now, does not enable the Commission, in its general reorganisation of the coal industry, to take any notice whatsoever of the standards or social conditions of the miners. We think it is typical of the outlook of this Government, which is entirely controlled by private interests, that they should bring forward a Bill, which they call a Bill for the general reorganisation of the coal-mining industry, and yet refuse to give the body in control of that reorganisation any power to deal with the conditions or wages of the miners.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I should like, if I might, to reply to various suggestions which have been made. First, in reply to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), let me say that I am sorry that he has been frustrated twice before, but I am glad he has now had his opportunity. His desire that the Department of Mines should be separated from the Board of Trade strikes, at this precise moment, a sympathetic chord in my heart, because if it were done I should not have to be in charge of this Bill. But that suggestion, important as it is—and it is one that is always under review—is outside the scope of the Bill. If and when there was a separation, how-

ever, between the Ministry of Mines and the Board of Trade, then clearly, under the Bill, the functions which are and must be allocated to the Board of Trade would naturally be transferred to the Ministry of Mines.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and the hon Member for Spennymoor raised again the question of those words which deal with the question of safety in mines. It is quite clear that, at this moment, it is impossible to go into details, or to decide which particular thing would or would not come under the purview of the Commission. I would rather lay down this general rule. It is clear that we do not want any overlapping between what the Commission is able to do on the side of safety and the functions of the Secretary for Mines, who is responsible for making the safety regulations and responsible to this House for them. The case we have in mind, and one that is no doubt present to the minds of many hon. Members, is rather different. It is the case where, owing to the faulty lay-out of the mine in the first instance, regulations subsequently introduced cannot be efficiently carried out. The division I would suggest between the normal functions of the Ministry of Mines and what might be done by the Commission is a division between methods of working and lay-out. While methods of working would remain, as now, with the Ministry of Mines it would be possible for the Coal Commission to impose conditions from the point of view of safety as to the lay-out of mines which would prevent the repetition of cases which have occurred where the original lay-out of a pit has defeated the object of subsequent regulations.
The hon. and learned Member for the Welsh Universities (Mr. E. Evans) argued again the case for leaving out Subsection (2). I shall not deal at length with what he says. That was argued at length in the House, and the overwhelming opinion of hon. Members on all sides was that this Sub-section was necessary, that through it was given some control to the House of Commons, and that that was desirable; and I think hon. Members withdraw their Amendments on the assurance I gave. I cannot give the hon. and learned Member any such promise as he asked, that I should withdraw the Clause. The only thing which I do promise on this is in regard to the


very small drafting point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, and that I will look into before Report.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that the Debate on this Clause showed that the Bill was in the interest of the mine owners. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a very persuasive speaker. I only wish he could use his powers of persuasion on some hon. Members on this side, because they do not believe that, and it would facilitate my task if he could use an eloquence that I do not possess and convince them of that. But I feel that he would have some difficulty, because I do not think the statement is true. I think that it is clear that this Commission has limited scope, but, within that limited scope, I believe that the balance is held fairly, and that the Commission will be able to perform the duties laid down in paragraph (1) in the interests of the mining community as a whole.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Commission to acquire fee simple in coal.)

9.25 p.m.

Lord Apsley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, after "all," to insert "proved."

The Amendment I have to move is of a somewhat radical nature. It goes into a matter of policy upon which the whole future of the industry may depend. I can see the point of view of hon. Members opposite. It is a straight-forward one. They look upon this as a step, though a very inadequate and inefficient one, towards control and nationalisation. That is not the view of hon. Members on this side. We view the Measure as one by which, through the purchase of all existing royalties, the industry can be put on a better footing and, even though at some sacrifice, and possibly a considerably sacrifice, the royalty owners in this part of the Bill are quite willing to undergo that if it is going to benefit the industry as a whole. When I say "the industry," I must lay stress on this point that the industry, of course, includes the miners as well as the owners. I gave the analogy the other day of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act. If my right hon. Friend's predecessor had attempted to pass a Bill not to limit the scope of the Spindles Board to the buying up of

redundant spindles, but had given them powers by which they might possess and own spindles, and indeed take part in the cotton industry themselves, the Bill would never have got through the House.

What is being done in this case? Under the Government scheme they own all existing and proved coal. There have been a number of Commissions—the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission—and, I gather, a geological survey on which they have based their knowledge. Geological surveys are not always right. There is the historic example of the Mosul oil field, and there is the case of various oil borings in different parts of this country. Only the other day in Berkshire, when boring for oil, a seam of extremely rich iron was discovered which no geologist had thought it possible to find. Therefore, I am a little suspicious of information based on geological surveys. Still, the Government claim, I understand, that they have knowledge of all existing proved coal in the country, and on that information they have based the fixing of what is called the global figure. I am not quite sure what this global figure really represents. My right hon. Friend said it meant a round figure. I have looked it up and I find it in very few dictionaries. I have found "globose," "globular," "globulose" and even "globy," meaning round. The Oxford Dictionary mentions it and says it is very rare—"global, spherical or globular." It was mentioned in 1676 by a Mr. Dixon, who said, "I would challenge the best mathematician to demonstrate"—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not at present see the connection between the Amendment that the Noble Lord is proposing and his speech.

Lord Apsley: I was endeavouring to find out what relation this so-called global figure has to the question of proved or unproved coal. It is a very important point. I understand that the global figure, on which the payment to royalty owners is fixed, was fixed on the value of proved coal as given to various Royal Commissions and according to a geological survey.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am now beginning to understand the point. If the Noble Lord wants to argue about the particular sum, that must come on a later Clause.

Lord Apsley: I will take an opportunity of arguing the fixing of the sum on a later Clause, but I want to find out whether the fixing of the sum relates only to known and proved coal or to unproved coal as well, because I gather that in Schedule 3 there will be a valuation of coal subsequent to the valuation date on which any owners of coal may claim to be registered as coalowners within six months of the valuation date. Now the question arises: Is this coal, so far not proved but to be proved now or within six months, included in the global figure? It would seem that the more claims that are made in that respect the smaller the amount that each proved royalty owner will get under the global figure. It might very well be described as a wasting asset. Then comes the question of how these valuations are to be made.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Noble Lord cannot raise that now. The point at issue is an extremely narrow one—whether coal whose existence is not now proved shall pass to the Commission under the Clause, or whether the Commission will have to purchase it subsequently.

Lord Apsley: That seems to narrow it down to a very definite point. I might take a hypothetical case of an owner, say, in a remote part of Wales who knows that he has coal under his property. He has taken no step to encourage any colliery or pioneering company to develop the coal, because he does not wish to develop it now. He looks on it as an investment for future generations. I undertsand that this coal would not be valued, and yet it would vest in the Commission, who could take it over at no price at all. In that case, if the owner seeks to register as the owner, he would be told, "Your coal is miles away. There is no chance of it being developed. It is too far from any existing harbour. Your coal is worth nothing at all." If, on the other hand, as may happen, a Government factory is put up there, say, under the Defence expansion scheme, immediately that coal might increase in value, and some colliery who had an eye on it might come forward and ask for a lease to develop it. It should be made clear whether the Commission is to make an offer for such coal or whether it will get it completely free. The whole fixing of the global figure must depend upon that to a certain extent. A further

objection I have to the Commission taking over unproved coal is that I very much doubt whether the impeccable characters of Government officials have elastic or speculative tendencies which lead to the best way of developing new coal mines. I have seen so many examples of it abroad, particularly in Australia, a country rich in coal and other minerals, and where, with the exception of gold, hardly any development has taken place at all.
I have an idea that once the landowner's interest has been removed and the pioneer companies are out of it completely, no development would take place. Colliery companies might apply for a lease and receive the usual negative Whitehall reply that "This is being considered and something will be done at some future date." This will go on for years before anything particular is done, and yet every now and then, the Commission or the peculiar department dealing with research may suddenly get a twinge of conscience that they are not earning their salaries and say, "We have to go somewhere, or we are not doing our job." Hon. Members opposite might find a representative of the Commission going to them and saying, "We have been informed that there is coal under your back garden, and we are going to bore straight away and do some pioneer work."

Mr. Stanley: If my Noble Friend refers to Clause 15, he will see there is another Clause that makes it necessary for the Commission to go to the Railway and Canal Commission before they bore in my Noble Friend's back garden.

Lord Apsley: That will only delay the process still further. After two or three years they will be given permission to go into the back garden of one of my hon. Friends opposite and I am afraid that even the Railway and Canal Commission will not prevent them boring if they wish to do so. But in view of the experience which I have had of State-controlled borings and experimental research, and also in view of the opinions of geologists, I am very doubtful about the future of the coal industry under this section of the Bill. I should prefer after the words "after all" to insert the word "proved" so as to confine the activities of the Commission to all known proved coal at the present


moment, which would give a fair valuation to all existing owners of royalties. They would know what they were getting and what the sum was, whereas at the present moment it is extremely doubtful what valuation they may get. None of them seems to know what the global figure really represents and I doubt very much whether fair compensation will be paid. I would like to see my Amendment adopted, and I believe that it would put the Bill on to a much better basis.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply straight away on what has been rightly described by the Chair as a very narrow point. It is simply whether the Commission is to take over coal whether it is proved or unproved. It was quite clearly understood—and I am sure that the representatives of the royalty owners themselves will agree with me—that under the terms of reference of the arbitration tribunal—and when my Noble Friend refers to the global sum fixed by the Government I must correct him and say that it was fixed by the arbitration tribunal—it is clearly understood that coal was to cover coal both proved and unproved. If, therefore, we were to accept the Amendment we should upset the whole basis upon which that global figure was arrived at. With regard to the methods of compensation, my Noble Friend raised a particular example. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent the landlord to whom he refers claiming through the machinery of this Bill for the value of the unproved coal which he possesses. His claim will be assessed under the machinery and not by the Government, because the Government give the global figure and the distribution of that global figure is under the various valuations boards.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how you claim for unproved coal, if you cannot prove that it is there?

Mr. Stanley: You would have to satisfy the Board that there was coal there and that that coal had a value.

Lord Apsley: Any claim that he might make would be at the expense of any proved coal that had already been valued. That would mean that the amount provided from the global sum would be smaller than the rest, and, therefore, the

global figure which was not fixed would shrink.

Mr. Stanley: I would tell the Noble Lord that that particular figure was fixed having regard to the fact that unproved coal could be taken over. In any case, a landlord who thinks that he has unproved coal which is of value is entitled to claim. Whether he succeeds in his claim depends upon whether he can convince this tribunal, which consists almost entirely of mineral agents, with an independent chairman, that that coal has a value. If he can prove that it has a value, he will receive a fair proportion of compensation for it.

Mr. Shinwell: This is an important point and I want to be clear about it. There is some doubt as to what is actually meant. Is this what is meant? If the Noble Lord or any other person or landlord makes a claim for unproved coal, he has either to search and bore for coal himself to establish his claim or, in the absence of the right under this Bill, the Commission itself has to search and bore, and having discovered coal, have to pay compensation at the global figure.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. The whole of the valuation will be completed before the Commission ever begins to serve. The only point that I am making is that it is the right of anybody who thinks that his coal has a value to claim under the machinery, and if he can satisfy the Valuation Board that it has a value he receives compensation. [Interruption]. It is not my business; it is his business to prove it. All that I say is that he has the right to go to the tribunal and attempt to prove his claim.
There is one other point which the Noble Lord raised, with which I should like to deal, and that is his contention that under the new plan the unproved coal is transferred to the Coal Commission, which a civil servant will sit down and assess. I wonder in actual practice how much new coal has been proved. As far as I know, it is very seldom that the ground landlord has proved new coal. He uses one of the pioneering companies, and the Commission will have exactly the same powers that the ordinary private landlord has to make use of these pioneering companies, if they so desire, in order to search and bore for coal.
Finally, let me explain why I believe that this proposal is quite unacceptable. The Noble Lord himself said that the royalty owners were prepared to accept this plan of purchase of existing royalties if it had the effect of putting the industry on a better footing. What is the good of purchasing the existing royalties and using them to put the industry on a better footing if alongside you allow the old system to grow up once again, with private royalties actually increasing as new coal is proved, until finally the same process that we are going through now has to be gone through again? It seems to me that from all points of view, from the point of view of financial fairness, because this has already been included in the arbitration, and from the point of view of the proper working of this provision, we should adhere to the plan in the Bill and taken over the coal, whether it be proved or otherwise.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The next Amendment that I call is that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in page 3, line 1, to leave out "forty-two," and to insert "forty."

Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. What about my Amendment, in page 2, line 30, after "thereto," to insert "including all surface wayleaves"?

The Chairman: I am not selecting it, and on this occasion I do not mind telling the hon. Member the reason, which is that it would come more properly on the Second Schedule.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "forty-two," and to insert "forty."
The miners in the coalfield are very much interested in this Bill. I went home last week-end and met about a dozen of our chaps, and they said to me, "George, there is not much in that Bill for us." I think everybody in the House remembers the time when the late Prime Minister, Earl Baldwin, made his statement in March, 1937, that the Government had agreed to accept Judge Green's arbitration as far as the figure for mining royalties was concerned. In Clause 3 it states that the valuation date shall be

1st January, 1939, or 13 months from now, and the vesting date, 1st July, 1942, or 3½ years from now, and if we take Earl Baldwin's statement that the Government were prepared to accept the figure of £66,450,000 last March, it means that it is taking the Government, with a great majority in this House, five years and three months from March, 1937, till July, 1942, before the royalty owners will be bought out. We are desirous that the Government should get some speed on.

Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: I would like to remind the hon. Member that the Bill is not through yet.

Mr. Griffiths: There is no need to remind me of that. I know it. I am not as green as a Christmas tree, if I look it. We know that the Bill is not through, but we do say that the Government, if they were in earnest about the Bill, would get it through and would get the vesting date nearer than 1st July, 1942. I am interested in this thing from the standpoint of the man at the coal face. At the pit that I worked at before coming here, every man had got to be down the pit by six o'clock, and the winding of the coal started as soon as the hooter blew six. The royalty owner at that pit was drawing 4½d. per ton. At some collieries in Wales they get 9d., and at some others 3.71d., but the average royalty in 1936 was 4.65d., and the royalty owners drew nearly £5,000,000 in 1936. That comes off the wages every month in ascertainment, because it states quite clearly that costs other than wages must be taken off before the man gets his wages, and the man who is producing that royalty is the man who is getting the coal at the coal face.
My point is that the royalty owner in the shaft at the pit where I worked got royalty on 180 tons an hour. I have worked it out while listening to the global dispute this evening, and it works out at £3 7s. 6d. per hour, or at that shaft, for 15 hours, the royalty owner drew £51 2s. 6d. He drew equal to 100 men's wages during that day. This thing is to go on for another 3½ years from the valuation date or five years from now, and we on this side believe that this could be and should be speeded up. You are saying to the Department, "We will put you on minimum wage for the next three or four years." You are going to


ask the Department, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said, to ca'canny, to slow down, and this means to the royalty owner, besides his £66,450,000 during those five years, £22,500,000, plus the £10,000,000 for some other bits and ends around the pit, which means £100,000,000, or, bringing it down to the man working in the pit, it means that 780,000 men have to work for 12 months before this bill of the royalty owners is paid, and the money comes out of the industry. To put it in another way. The number of miners now at work is 780,000 and according to the latest returns their wages amount to £100,000,000 a year so that to redeem the royalties these men have to work for 12 months. To bring it still further down, it means that there are 37,000 men working every day for the royalty owners and nobody else—men stripped to the waist, and with the sweat pouring out of them.
I am not reading something out of a book now. I am speaking from experience. Yet the Government say that we have to continue with this system for another five years in addition to giving the royalty owners £66,450,000. It means that every man and boy working in the pit has 6½d. taken out of his wages every day. If he works six days a week, though few are doing so now, it means that 3s. 3d. a week is taken out of his wages for the payment of the royalty owners. The President of the Board of Trade smiles at my way of putting it, but I hope he will insist on speeding up this process of buying out the royalty owners. We believe that the royalty owners, since 1568, have got sufficient out of the industry. The Bible says "the earth is the Lord's" but a lot of landlords seem to have stolen it. Now that the Government have had an arbitration and have made a bargain, we ask that they should make the date 1940 instead of 1942.

9.59 p.m.

Lord Apsley: The hon. Member in his endeavour to induce the Committee to limit this period is using the old familiar argument that all royalty owners are "parasites who are battening on the miners," but I doubt whether he really knows the true conditions even in his own district. He certainly does not appear to know the conditions in South Wales where the royalty owners frequently are very small men, sometimes miners themselves, who by

their enterprise and efforts have helped in the development of a great industry. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) spoke of Welsh farmers who had leased the mineral rights on their farms at the rate of £40 a year and the manure from the mines stables. He described them as poor, simple Welsh farmers who knew no better. I have met some poor Welsh farmers but I have not yet met a simple one, and it seemed to me that a rent of £40 an acre amounting to a capital value of £900 an acre was not such a very bad deal.
Again my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said the great landlords in the past paid very little attention to the question of mineral development but I do not think that is the case. The great-uncle of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) was a mining engineer in Cornwall. Once he happened to be bathing on the coast in Westmorland and he noticed on the pebbles of the beach signs of certain valuable mineral deposits in the neighbourhood. He went to the local landowner, the father of the present Lord Lonsdale. He paid his visit at the right time, just after dinner, and he was able to persuade the landowner that development was possible. That was the beginning of a great industry in Cumberland which has employed thousands of men and is again employing many men to-day. That industry sprang up as a result of the action of the royalty owner in supporting with his capital as well as his good will the efforts of the mining engineer, and there have been many other cases of a like nature.
Hon. Members who know the conditions and the history of the mines in their own districts know in how many cases it was the royalty owners, whether they were small farmers or miners, who really started the industry going. It would be a mistake to accept this Amendment which would be depriving of their rightful compensation men who have done a great deal to deserve it. Because their sons or their grandsons may have done nothing for the industry is not an argument in favour of the Amendment. One-might say the same thing about the ownership of royalties in a book. An hon. Member who had written a book which was of such value that it was likely to be read three or four generations hence


would be proud to think of his grandchildren being privileged to enjoy the benefit of the property in that book.

Mr. T. Smith: If a man writes a book, is there not a limit on the number of years during which he can draw royalties from it?

The Chairman: I think we must keep to the Amendment. We seem to have been getting into a discussion on the virtue or otherwise of owners of coal royalties, and now it is extending to royalties on books.

Lord Apsley: I apologise for the diversion. At the same time, I suggest that there is some similarity between the two cases and that to limit the time allowed by the Government for the purchase of royalties would be wrong. If the Government took over the publication of books as is done in the totalitarian States and allowed only Government writers to produce books, would hon. Members say that all existing rights in royalties should be brought to an end in two years time?

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Cape: In supporting the Amendment, I wish particularly to refer to what the noble Lord said in regard to Cumberland. I think he was in some error as to his facts. The coalfield to which he refers is the Cumberland coalfield and it does not extend inland. It extends under the sea and the landowner to whom he refers and his descendants worked those mines themselves until about 50 years ago. Since that time the mines have been worked by various companies and the royalty owners have continued to draw their rents, and are still drawing royalty rents for coal worked under the sea. What is going to happen to coal of that kind under this Bill?

Lord Apsley: I was not referring to coal but to hematite ore. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: I do hope that hon. Members will help me to keep the discussion in order. A very great deal of what was said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment seemed to be a little wide of the mark, and since then I have scarcely heard a word about the Amendment. I must ask hon. Members to look at the Amendment and keep it in their minds. It is simply a question whether the date inserted is to be 1942.

Mr. Cape: It seems to me that everybody in the Committee, including myself, is getting somewhat mixed. The Noble Lord has confused hematite ore with coal, and I want to extricate the Committee from this confused position if I can by coming back to the Amendment. It is a practical, fair and reasonable Amendment. Under the Bill the vesting date does not take place for five years, and during those five years the royalty owners will be still drawing their royalty rents. That will apply to the royalties I have referred to, namely, royalties on coal worked under the sea. Therefore, the tax will continue and our men will have to pay for it. Too big a price can be paid for certain reforms, and I think that the £66,000,000 which the royalty owners are to get is excessive. Moreover, if the Act is not to be effective until 1942 the amount that the royalty owners will get will be more excessive than the arbitrator's award. I strongly support the Amendment.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment on the narrow ground that if the Bill were so amended the practice would more exactly follow the precedents that have been created in local government generally. It is not uncommon under the Act of 1930 for a local authority to acquire property, to enter within 14 days, and for the value to be fixed a considerable time after the land has been in their occupation and they have been using it for the purpose for which they required it. If that is possible—it is in use every day of the year and a large number of transactions have taken place under that system—why should it not be possible in this case? There can be no reason for having so long a period between the valuation date and the vesting date. It is possible for some agreed sum to be paid, if there is necessity for it in the interim, by way of a day-to-day payment on some agreed minimum valuation. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should assume that there will be such a large number of cases outstanding until 1942. Hon. Members opposite assume that the income of the royalty owners is going to fall under the Bill, but I have not been convinced of that. Even if that be the case, there is no reason why they should continue to receive for two years after the valuation date an income which this House by passing this Bill has


decided is more than they are entitled to for services, which it is very difficult to define, which they have rendered to the industry and the nation. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment and bring the vesting date nearer to the valuation date than is provided for in the Bill.

10.12 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This is a narrow point. The period of 3½ years from the valuation date to the vesting date is the shortest possible time in our estimation for the necessary work that has to be done. Everyone wishes that this transaction should be carried through as soon as possible, so that the Commission can get on with the work which Parliament gives them to do, but it must be remembered that there are a great many properties to be valued, and that the full details about any particular property are not yet available. We passed a Registration Act last Session in order to get on with the registration of property rights. After the registration the actual valuation has to take place. We have to find out first what it is we are going to value. Hence the registration. After that, we have to give an opportunity for each person who owns some of this property to put in his claim. First of all, there is the notice, and then he has to put in his claim, with his estimated value of the property. That goes to the Valuation Board for consideration, and if prima facie the value put upon the property is considered too high, they have to value it themselves. Then there may be a dispute about the figure arrived at by the Board, and in that case there must be an appeal procedure. All this inevitably is a lengthy process in a field where the number of people competent to do this form of valuation is very small.
It is not the job of an ordinary valuer to value minerals. The profession which deals with it is a very small one, and it is no good getting in people to do this work who are not familiar with it. We are animated with a desire to get this work done as soon as possible, but the inquiries which have to be made and the necessary machinery to hear claims and appeals before coming to a final decision make it clear that it must take some time. The Hon. Member may, perhaps, have overlooked the method of dividing the compensation. The total value is for

the property as a whole, but, of course, the sum total of the individual valuations may not be the same as the total value of the property as a whole, and therefore it is provided that there shall be a proportionate sum, but we cannot give this proportionate sum until the valuations are completed. It is not exactly the same kind of case to which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred where the value of the property is quite clear—

Sir S. Cripps: In those cases there are often different interests, tenant rights and freehold rights, which all have to be valued separately from the total valuation of the property.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, but the size of the problem we are dealing with here is quite different. We are dealing with a sum of £66,000,000, divided among thousands of owners. The hon. Member may take it that, anxious as we are to get on with the work, it is quite impossible to carry out in less time all these valuations up to the point at which each persons gets his final compensation. Whether the Government have a great majority or a small majority cannot have anything to do with the speeding up of the valuations. This is done by experts under the machinery of the Bill. With all the good will in the world it is quite impossible to get this work done sooner.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. and gallant Member has not done very much to convince us on this side. I referred to this problem on the Second Reading, and the hon. and gallant Member said that it would take a very long time. He has said that he is as anxious as we are that this work should be completed as rapidly as possible, but I am bound to say that in my view the Government, when they received the award of the Greene arbitration, finding that it was much lower than they were prepared to offer, came to the conclusion that they had to make it up to the royalty owners in another way, and they have done so by leaving them in possession of their royalties for another four years. The question is whether the Government, having made up its mind to make coal a national possession, should not have taken possession of the coal as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book. I suggested that in the Second Reading Debate, but said that I would compromise by going as far as the valuation


day. What reason is there, the nation having made this decision, for postponing the date of valuation to 1942, except to allow the royalty owners to remain in undisputed possession for a further period.

Marquess of Titchfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is really fair to take people's property without paying for it?

Mr. Greenwood: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am merely suggesting that we should pay for it more quickly. I am not arguing that the royalty owners should not receive compensation for the loss of these rights which they have enjoyed for so long. I am arguing that since the Government have made up their mind that coal should be nationalised and made public property, the coal ought to be vested in the nation from the day on which the Bill goes on to the Statute Book.

Mr. H. G. Williams: And the coal is paid for.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Member is a little impatient. It might be reasonable to say that the date should be postponed until the valuation date. I would not mind that postponement, but I say that every day after that during which the coal does not, in fact, belong to the nation is another charge upon the mining industry. This postponement of the date will cost a burden of several million pounds on the coal-mining industry of this country. In reply to one of my hon. Friends who quoted what I thought was a very apposite case, the hon. and gal-land Gentleman said that this is all very complicated. In my limited experience, all transfers of property are complicated. The law of this country has been built up on foundations which make the transfer of property very difficult and hedge round property rights with very many privileges. It would be perfectly feasible for the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines to take over the coal on the date on which the Bill goes on to the Statute Book, and to allow the question of valuation to be dealt with subsequently. To relieve the distress of these poor widows who are royalty owners, the small people and the miners who are royalty owners, there could be an interim payment, and the valuation could be proceeded with.
Where is the strength of the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the valuation is so difficult in its nature when, in fact, the valuation could be settled after the ownership of coal has been assumed by the nation? There is no reason for the valuation coming before the assumption of ownership, except the desire on the part of the Government to give a last parting gift to the royalty owners. I hope that my hon. Friends, who have been very amenable to-day, will, on this occasion, stand by their guns and not accept the arguments that have been made by the Secretary for Mines.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: On two occasions in the past there have been proposals to make a valuation of land, and I can well remember that on both those occasions hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite made violent attacks on the cost of the valuation. In fact, if I may remind them of it, in 1910 there was a national cry by hon. Members opposite about the cost of valuation. To-night I am rather amazed by the conversion that seems to have taken place on the other side. I am amazed that hon. Members opposite are agreeing to valuation. When it was a question of valuation with a view to appropriating to the Treasury the values of the land, there was a howl of protest against the cost of the valuation. This valuation is to take 3½ years and this period must be debited against the cost of the valuation. There is not merely the £10,000,000 budgeted for the valuation over and above the £66,000,000, but there must be added the royalties payable during those 3½ years, which will be a global sum of between £14,000,000 and £15,000,000. That must be debited to the cost of the valuation.
I thought it necessary to say that before we leave this question so that probably in future, when the citizens of the State become more intelligent and demand the appropriation of all land values to the Treasury, we shall not hear, when we attempt to value the land for the benefit of the community, this howl about the cost of valuation. It appears from a succeeding Amendment on the Paper that there is a feeling on the other side that the 3½ years will not be long enough. What is to happen? It has been adumbrated by the Minister. The owner will first be asked to volunteer an offer, which


will be taken as substantial evidence. Then there will be the Government valuation, and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) reminded the Government, when there are three or four different interests in the same land there will be complicated valuations and apportionments. After all that has been gone through there will be confusion as to the proper apportionments and probably litigation. I shall be surprised if the valuation is completed in 3½ years, because it will be to the advantage of the vested interests to fight the valuations by litigation and cross-actions, with the piling up of costs, and the Minister will be a lucky man if he gets away with it in 3½ years.
I hope that the ease with which this Bill is passing, despite the cost of this valuation, will be carried as a lesson to the people in the country that there need be no difficulty about the enormous cost of valuation when there is a lump sum going to the landowners to buy them out, but when it is a valuation to tax the landlords out of existence, there is a howl throughout the country. Then the valuation is more costly than any valuation proposals that have ever been tabled in this House. Yet we are told we are anxious to get it through. We are so anxious that we wish there were a more expeditious valuation. The Government are very accommodating. I am not blaming the Opposition. You might as well blame a leopard for having spots as to blame the Opposition for taking this attitude with regard to the period of this valuation. We shall get nowhere with this Amendment, but I do not think that even you, Sir Dennis, could blame me for taking this opportunity of reminding hon. Members of their sins of the past and of the sin they are committing now.

10.30 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: The Minister has suggested that this is only a narrow point. It may be a narrow point, but it involves something like £5,000,000, and it is well that we should understand this and how it comes to be. The sum agreed as the result of the arbitral tribunal's decision is £66,000,000, in round figures. By extending the period from 1940 until the middle of 1942—and I think that in putting it at 1940 my hon. Friends were unduly generous, because I should have preferred to see the date that upon which the Bill came into force—there will be

an extra payment of £9,000,000 in royalties alone to the royalty owners. I quite agree that the royalty owners, if they are not to receive their royalties, are entitled to interest upon their purchase-money from the date when the property is taken over, and I assess that interest at the rate at which interest is assessed in the Bill itself for other purposes, and that is 3½ per cent. At that rate the interest would amount, over a period of 2½ years, to £4,000,000. The difference between £9,000,000 and £4,000,000 gives us the figure of £5,000,000, which is the sum involved in what the Minister has referred to as a narrow point.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand-that it is proposed to pinch £5,000,000 from these people?

Colonel Nathan: I am not proposing to pinch either from the one side or the other. All I say is that this narrow point involves a difference of £5,000,000 and whether that sum goes into the pockets of the royalty owners or the Coal Commission. It is quite a usual practice, a matter of every-day business when property is passing or businesses are being sold and especially where, as in this case, the price has already been agreed to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The total price for the purchase of the whole of the royalties is set down in the Bill and the price has been agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, fixed."] It is usual in such a case that interest should be paid on the purchase money; or, indeed, it may be usual in other cases that the vendor should remain in possession of his rents and properties; it is all a matter of bargaining. The bargain here has been—I suspect that it is a bargain designed to buy off opposition on the part of a number of royalty owners—that they are to get an extra period during which they are to receive not interest on their royalties but their royalties, and £5,000,000 is to go into the pockets of the royalty owners instead of into the pockets of the Commission.
The royalty owners cannot use the argument, "We do not know who the owners are," because they have had an opportunity for some time past of registering their claims, and they have failed to a large extent to take advantage of it. It does not lie in their mouths to say that they must have time for registration. I agree with the Secretary for Mines that


it is going to take a very long time to effect the valuation. It will be complicated, difficult and expensive, and it will lead, no doubt, to litigation. In my opinion it will take a great deal more than three years to make the valuation, to ascertain definitely where the precise rights lie and to whom this money is to be paid.
What is the Minister going to do when July, 1942, arrives and his valuation is not complete and his subdivision of this global sum has not been ascertained or made? I suggest that the right course

for the Government to adopt is not to pay this extra £5,000,000 to the royalty owners. Let the Coal Commission take it and apply it to the purpose for which royalties are designed under this Bill. Meanwhile, let interest be paid, pending completion, to the royalty owners. They will then be in the same position as are vendor and purchaser in the normal transactions of everyday life.

Question put, "That the word 'forty-two' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 124.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[10.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Donner, P. W.
Kimball, L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Albery, Sir Irving
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Latham, Sir P.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Dunglass, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Apsley, Lord
Eastwood, J. F.
Levy, T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Lewis, O.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lindsay, K. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Emery, J. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loftus, P. C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Blair, Sir R.
Everard, W. L.
McKie, J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fleming, E. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Furness, S. N.
Maitland, A.


Bracken, B.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bull, B. B.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burghley, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Butler, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morgan, R. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Cary, R. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Munro, P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
Nall, Sir J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Colman, N. C. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Patrick, C. M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peake, O.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepworth, J.
Peat, C. U.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Higgs, W. F.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Petherick, M.


Crooke, J. S.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Pilkington, R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.


Cross, R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Radford, E. A.


Crossley, A. C
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsbotham, H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rankin, Sir R.


De Chair, S. S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Major R. H


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Doland, G F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)




Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spens. W. P
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Rowlands, G.
Storey. S.
Warrender, Sir V.


Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Russall, Sir Alexander
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)
Wells, S. R.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Salmon, Sir I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Salt, E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Sutcliffe, H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sandys, E. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Savery, Sir Servington
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd. S.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Scott, Lord William
Thomas, J. P. L.
Wise, A. R.


Shaw, Major P. S, (Wavertree)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Touche, G. C.
Wragg, H.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Train, Sir J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.



Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R- L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Turton, R. H.
Captain Hope and Major Sir


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wakefield, W. W.
James Edmondson.


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Groves, T. E.
Richards. R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hayday, A.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Henderson, T, (Tradeston)
Silverman, S. S.


Cassells, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Hollins, A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'llg)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Leach. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Debbie, W.
Lee, F.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Weir, L. MacNeill


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Gibbins, J.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Adamson and Mr. Charleton.

10.45 p.m.

Marquess of Titchfield: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, after "forty-two," to insert:
or such later date as may be determined by the Commission.
The object of this Amendment, as my hon. Friends opposite have already realised, is exactly the opposite of the

Amendment which has just been disposed of. The object of this Amendment is to safeguard the position of the mineral owner, should the valuation not be finished by 1942. Should that situation arise, the position of the mineral owner will be impossible, because he will have had a part, perhaps half—one does not know how much—of his property taken away, without any valuation being put


on it. If my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, I think it will mean that this impossible position will not arise. I was rather surprised at the remarks that fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan). I wonder if he would have said the same three or four years ago, before the accident happened at Bethnal Green. Suppose we brought in a Bill on this side to nationalise all solicitors, in the same way as he wishes to treat the mineral owners, what would he do? I think we ought to have an answer, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said to me the day before yesterday, we have plenty of time if the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene. I take it that he does not.
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that we must have some sort of finality with regard to these valuations. He is embarking on a new venture, and many unforeseen circumstances may arise. These valuations, I think, will take a good deal more time than my right hon. Friend thinks, or, indeed, than hon. Members opposite think. There is one estate that I know.—[Interruption]—well, two or three perhaps; anyway there is one, and there are no less than 750 documents to be gone through before the valuation of that estate is completed. I do not think my right hon. Friend or hon. Members opposite realise that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept the Amendment now, to go into it and perhaps give me an answer later.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: My Noble Friend moves his Amendment in such a persuasive way that it requires the hardest heart and the strongest head to refuse to give way to him, but I am afraid, although I quite realise the real difficulty and the possible grievance he is trying to remove, I cannot agree that the way he proposes is the right way to do it. Before we fixed this date of 1942, which hon. Members opposite think is too far distant, we made inquiries from those who were competent to judge, from those who do this work and from those who are likely to be called upon to do it, as to the length of time that it was likely to take and we must, of course, remember that all the time that we are discussing this Bill,

while we are waiting for it to go through, a considerable amount of preliminary work is already being done under the Act that we passed in the summer, and the documents designed to prove title are, after all, documents that are being prepared in connection with the work of registration which is already going on. We satisfied ourselves by those inquiries that we can reasonably expect that by this date the valuation will be completed, or virtually completed.
The great objection to accepting any Amendment on these lines is that it would remove from those engaged in the valuation, and those who are making claims, any incentive to have the valuation finished by that date. We should like to have it completed by that date. The acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, the fact that if only people were dilatory enough to prevent the valuation being nearly completed by 1942, they would have a good case for these powers to be exercised, would in itself be enough to ensure that 1942 would no longer be the date by which it would be completed. Therefore I could not accept an Amendment on these lines. On the other hand, I see the difficulties that my Noble Friend has put, that if the valuation is not completed by that time, if it is not possible to pay compensation on the day that the property vests, the royalty owner, who, after all, may have a mortgage on his property, and may be paying interest on it, may find himself till the period when the compensation is paid without any income at all. But we have attempted to deal with that point and, if there is any way in which we have not done so adequately, we can discuss it when we come to the particular part of the Bill. We have attempted to deal with the point in another way. We have given the Commission power to make payment on account.
Although it is possible that by this particular date the valuation will not be entirely completed, I am convinced, from the inquiries which we have made among those who know most upon the subject, that the valuation will at least be sufficiently far advanced to enable payments to be made on account. If it is possible to make these payments on account after the vesting date, we shall avoid the situation that the Noble Lord foresees, and which ought to be avoided, when the


income which the royalty owners receive from their property ceases and the income they expect to receive from their compensation has not yet arrived. When we come to discuss the part of the Schedule which deals with these payments on account any questions which may be raised as to their adequacy or to their sufficiency can be dealt with. I am convinced that it is by that method of payment in advance and not by the method proposed in this Amendment that we should deal with the contingency which the Noble Lord has in mind.

10.57 p.m.

Sir Adrian Baillie: Before allowing this Amendment to pass, I would like briefly to support the Noble Lord who moved it. I very much appreciate the reasons given by my right hon. Friend for not wishing to accept the Amendment in this form, but in practice it seems quite a simple proposition that the Commission should have the power to extend the vesting date if necessary if anyone would be deprived of his ownership before the amount of compensation to which he would be entitled had been ascertained. If these ascertainments are reached before the vesting date, there is no objection to the intention behind the Amendment. If they are not reached there is undoubtedly, as the Minister suggested, in the Schedule a certain amount of injustice. I, for one, as a royalty owner do not feel that too much justice is being done in any case.

Mr. Ede: It would be a bad job for you if justice was done to you.

Sir A. Baillie: When I read this Amendment I knew that in Scotland there might be even greater difficulties as regards ascertainment, and I wrote to my solicitors to find out. I found that all the difficulties mentioned by the Noble Lord are as great, if not intensified, in Scotland, and it is very doubtful whether the vesting date will give sufficient time for these ascertainments to be made. In speaking for Scotland, I support the Noble Lord. May I say one word about justice? I heard a quotation this evening given by an hon. Gentleman opposite which was very reminiscent to me. It may also be reminiscent to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) whom I once had the honour of defeating. He made this quotation:
The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.

Every one of his supporters who used to question me in the division, used to re-quote this quotation. One day I asked one of them if he knew where it came from, and he did not know. I told him that in the same part of the old Book there was another passage which I desired to quote, and that was that the righteous shall inherit the earth.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I do not think the Minister should be permitted to go unchallenged on that very thinly veiled acceptance of the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, because the manner in which he referred to the Amendment really expressed deep sympathy with its object, and this, coming so closely upon the discussion which we had on the Amendment with the opposite intention, seems to me rather bold. The suggestion now is that the time to be given to the royalty owners might even be extended, and the Minister calmly expresses his full sympathy with that aim. He expresses his agreement with the grievance which they apprehend, which is, in fact, an invitation from this House to all the royalty owners in the country to sabotage the process of valuation, to hold it up, and to compel the Government to consider any difficulty that will arise in 1942. The proposer of the Amendment expressed his view that it was necessary to have some finality to this matter, but his Amendment removes finality and tends to add to the time to be allowed. I do not think it right that this sort of thing should be countenanced. A charge has been made in this House that the country is being robbed in favour of royalty owners until 1942, and it is then quite calmly suggested that that process of robbery should go on still further, and I object to any such suggestion coming from the Government.

11.2 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: Is not the President of the Board of Trade putting a very dangerous weapon into the hands of the purchasing Commission in the alternative to which he referred? He suggested that they may make payments on account. If it had been that they shall make payments on account, it would have put a different complexion on the matter, but merely to say that they may make payments on account is surely giving them a weapon to hold over the unfortunate vendor.

The Chairman: I think that point must arise when we come to that provision in the Bill.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: What arises in my mind is the question of the very flimsy title deeds which some landlords can produce for the property which they now own. Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that unless they have proper title deeds, there will be no compensation?

The Chairman: I cannot allow that question on this Amendment.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: What worries me when I hear this discussion about the poor royalty owners in 1942 is this: Is it not true that at the vesting date, if the valuation is not completed and any poor royalty owner finds himself in difficulty, he can put himself on the means test? I do not understand why it is supposed to be such a normal thing for members of the working class to go to the public assistance committee but so dreadful for the royalty owners, and especially royalty owners who quote bad Scriptures. As a matter of fact, the passage which the hon. Member referred to reads as follows:
The meek…shall inherit the earth.
but the robbers shall steal the fruit thereof. What we are concerned about is putting an end to the robbery at the earliest possible moment. Those who for generations and for centuries have been robbing the industry and the country, have been making very bad use of the proceeds as has been very evident to-night. We should be finished with that robbery as early as possible and if the royalty owners are in any difficulty there is always the kind-hearted inspector of the Public Assistance Committee—so much lauded, on other occasions, by hon. Members opposite—who will be prepared to give them consideration.

Amendment negatived.

11.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "contract," to insert "on the valuation date."
The underlying idea of the Sub-section is that a contract is made on the valuation date for completion on the vesting date and we are advised that the Clause as

it stands is not sufficiently clear and that these words should be inserted because the property which is contracted for on the valuation date will not be exactly the same as the property on the vesting date. This is purely a drafting point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, after the second "coal," to insert "as existing at that date."
This, also, is purely drafting and is intended to make the Clause clearer.

11.8 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: May I ask the Secretary for Mines, who is apparently going to accept this Amendment, what it means? It is provided that on the vesting day all coal and mines of coal shall "vest." One can understand all the coal in this country and all the mines in the country coming under that statement, but if one adds the words "as existing at that date" it seems to presuppose the possibility of some other coal existing at some other time. Is this intended to distinguish existing coal from coal which may be formed in thousands of millions of years, and which is at present in the form of timber or something like that?

Captain Crookshank: I am advised that these words follow on the words which have just been inserted.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I think we require a much fuller explanation than that. I am at a loss to understand what these words mean. What is meant by "all existing coal"? I presume it means all coal, proved and unproved. There can be no other kind of coal. Surely the term in the Clause is adequate for the purpose, and it is unnecessary to add these words; and if they are redundant, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is accepting them.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): There is really nothing in this point. The Committee will see that the primary contract is entered into upon the valuation date, and refers to the coal as existing on the valuation date. Vesting takes place at a later date. In between the valuation date and the vesting date a certain amount of coal will be extracted from the earth and will be no longer there. The words which the hon. and learned Member suggests mean that the


contract shall apply only to coal that exists at that date.

Sir S. Cripps: What does "existing" mean? The Bill defines the expression "coal" as "bituminous coal, cannel coal and anthracite." I understand that existing coal is the unworked coal which is in the mine at the date of vesting. I still think that it is unnecessary to put in the words "existing at that date." If the expression in the Clause can only mean coal that is unsevered, unworked, then there can be no other coal meant than the coal on that date which is unsevered. It cannot conceivably mean anything else, and therefore the proposed words are unnecessary.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: If, as is suggested by the Attorney-General, the purpose is to

transfer only coal that then exists, what is to happen to potential liabilities that are now in the hands of the present royalty owners. Who will bear those if this is put into effect?

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Mainwaring: I appreciate that, but this Clause suggests that the Commission will take over only coal then existing. If we are to agree to that, we ought to know what is going to happen to other liabilities.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218: Noes, 102.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[11.13 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hutchinson, G. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Kimball, L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Latham, Sir P.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emery, J. F.
Lennox Boyd, A. T. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emmott, C. E. G. C
Levy, T.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Liddall, W. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lindsay, K. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lipson, D. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bracken, B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Loftus, P. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Everard, W. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Findlay, Sir E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fleming, E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Foot, D. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bull, B. B.
Furness, S. N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Burghley, Lord
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Butler, R. A.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Markham, S. F.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Carver. Major W. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cary, R. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswisk)


Colman, N. C. D.
Griffith. F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Nall, Sir J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Craven-Ellis, W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crott, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Crooke, J. S.
Hannah, I. C.
Patrick, C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peat, C. U.


Cross, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crossley, A. C.
Hely Hutchinson, M. R.
Petherick, M.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Procter, Major H. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Bushan-
Radford. E. A.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


De Chair, S. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


De la Bère, R.
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.


Denman. Hon. R. D.
Holdsworth, H
Ramsden, Sir E.


Doland, G. F.
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.




Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Raid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Spens. W. P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Rowlands, G.
Storey, S.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Strauss, H. G, (Norwich)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Salmon, Sir I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitahin)


Salt, E. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wise, A. R.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Thomas, J. P. L
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Savory, Sir Servington
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Scott, Lord William
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wragg, H.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Touche, G. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.



Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Turton, R. H.
Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wakefield, W. W.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwiek)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Short, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins, J
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson.


Question put, and agreed to.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The right hon. Gentleman has made substantial progress with his Bill, and I feel he ought to be satisfied with what has been done. I think he will agree that hon. Members on this side have not indulged in obstruction and have tried to facilitate the proceedings of the Committee. Several hon. Members opposite have participated in the Debates and have moved various Amendments, which have been argued fully, and although many of them have been withdrawn, part of the

time of the Committee has been taken up in that way. In all the circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman might well agree to the Motion. I would add, as he has himself observed, that this is an intricate and complicated Measure, and perhaps this is not the time to embark on a disquisition on matters that are so intricate.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I agree that we have made considerable progress and that, although we have had some quite lengthy discussions, they have been on matters of great importance, and nobody tended unduly to prolong them. On the other hand,


I understand that you, Captain Bourne, intend to select only one more Amendment on this Clause, and while not sitting beyond 12 o'clock, as the Prime Minister said, I feel that it might be possible to dispose of the one other Amendment and the Clause, and to start next time on the next Clause.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept the Motion. There are two other Amendments on the Paper, one in particular—that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—which may give rise to a fairly lengthy discussion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Motion.

Mr. Stanley: I gather that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is the only one that is to be selected.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be convenient to the Committee if I informed it that the next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—in page 3, line 18, after "are," insert "hereafter found in association with such coals or anthracite or are."

Mr. Stanley: I suggest that the hon. Member should move that Amendment and then we can see how the discussion goes.

Mr. Shinwell: On the understanding that we do not proceed beyond the next Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the Committee will be prepared to give us the Clause without discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for the Clause?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. If we can get the Amendment it should be possible, if the Committee wishes, to discuss the Clause, but if it desires to discuss it at any length we will not sit late.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, after "are," to insert:
hereafter found in association with such coals or anthracite or are.

11.26 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps I may offer, in supporting the Amendment, one or two words of explanation. In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) there is a provision that where there are already minerals or substances other than coal comprised in a lease which subsists at the valuation date, and which confers a right to work and carry away the coal and other minerals, then the term "coal'" in this Bill shall include such other minerals, provided the Commission may, by direction given in the prescribed manner before a certain date, exclude the other minerals from the operation of the paragraph. It seems to us that the same provision should apply as regards other coal which may be found subsequently and for which the Commission may wish to create a lease. Otherwise, there will be a difficult, if not impossible, situation, because if they can only deal with the coal, strictly speaking, as defined in paragraph (a), they will then have somebody else in possession of the other minerals such as are contemplated in paragraph (b), and they will not be able to deal with the coal without permission or getting a lease of the other minerals. We feel that some protection in regard to such future activities should be given to the Commission.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this point is sufficiently covered by Clause 28. I am not satisfied, however, that the Clause gives the Commission sufficient right, because under it it is only within their competence to acquire; and if they acquire they have, of course, presumably to pay compensation. Where the minerals are, of necessity, worked in connection with the working of the coal, I feel that there cannot be any harm in their being acquired as part of the coal, and not severed from the coal in the act of acquisition. I know that the point is a complicated one, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider it before the next stage to see whether he thinks that the Commission are fully protected as regards these cases in future.

11.31 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The only reason for dividing these minerals is the very practical one that from time to time the coal has to be worked in conjunction with these ancillary minerals. That is why


the Commission are given the right to disclaim these minerals within six months if, in fact, they do not need to have them vested in the Commission. That situation may arise, perhaps, partly because they are not actually worked with the coal, or because the mine in which they are being worked is not substantially a coal mine at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that if they do not disclaim them they are treated as subsidiary hereditaments and have to be paid for outside the global figure. If this Amendment were carried it would mean, in effect, that within the six months the Commission would have to decide whether any of the minerals, including those which are not yet worked, and possibly not known to exist at all, would need to be included in a coal lease, or would, in fact, be worked with the coal. They could not do that; it would be an obvious impossibility. I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind is covered in the Bill, but we will look into the point.

11.33 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite appreciated my point, though no doubt that is my fault. I was dealing with a case where normally one would expect the lease to cover the other minerals with the coal. If this is a lease in respect of some unproved coal, unworked coal, obviously the price of the other minerals which are offered as a subsidiary right would be something quite small, quite negligible, but if the moment comes when that coal is going to be worked and the Commission then have to buy, any blackmail price can be placed on those other minerals. The coal cannot be worked without the minerals, and the person who owns the minerals can say "You shan't have those minerals unless you pay me £10,000 for them." Their value then, when the coal is to be opened, would be very much higher. Not only could the Commission be blackmailed, but the value of the minerals would in fact then be very much higher, although until the coal is to be opened up their value would be absolutely negligible. What we want is that the Commission shall cash in these rights now before the value of the other minerals is raised by the fact of a new

mine being opened. If the Commission are acquiring all the coal, I see no reason why they should not acquire all the minerals that are being worked with the coal, so that if they come to clay levels which it is necessary to work, they will not have to pay for the clay.

Captain Crookshank: I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think it is going a little far to envisage the possibility of clay over coal. One does not know that it is there.

Sir S. Cripps: You do not know the coal is there.

Captain Crookshank: The coal is what is covered by the acquisition.

Sir S. Cripps: So will the clay be.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to extend it. However, we will look into this point; and, on the other hand, perhaps he will consider the effect on what he has been saying of Clause 28, which makes it within the competence of the Commission in future to acquire these associated minerals; and also Sub-section (3) of Clause 16, which gives the right in future to disclaim them in certain circumstances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I will take only half a minute to raise a particular point and put it on record. The Committee will appreciate that Sub-section (2) is putting every existing owner under a contract to sell his coal. A point which has occurred to some of my learned Friends is: In the case of an owner who is a lunatic or otherwise not sui juris, what is the exact effect in law of the words used in the Clause? The coal is to be held as though the lunatic had entered into a contract to sell his coal, but that is a nullity, and there is no owner of the coal. I suggest that the wording of the Clause might, perhaps, be strengthened so that the coal be held as though the owner were sui juris and able to make a valid and binding contract, or words to that effect. Otherwise it might be said that the wording in the Clause was not sufficient to put them in the position of being compelled to sell their coal.

The Attorney-General: We will look into that point later.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended] from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Merchant Shipping (Superannuation Contributions) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.